I agree that his motion is reasonable and should be granted.

However the weakest branch of Williams's argument is the assertion that his disclaimer ("...I will not give you a practice test if you tell me you plan to lie...") is "sufficient to prevent his involvement in any alleged scheme to defraud the Government or the tampering with any witness". The facts in evidence prove that this is not true. The disclaimer was on display and in effect when Doug was entrapped into violating its provisions.

Actually, the fact that he was so badly entrapped should be sufficient to deter any further violations. He set up a rule to protect himself and came to grief only from not following it. He won't do that again.

If Doug gets a chance to support this motion with oral argument, perhaps he should lean on the idea that he takes the appropriate lesson from his conviction and sentence. Justice department functionaries love to hear how their work straightens people out.