U.S. v. Watkins, 04-10771.
| Decision Date | 22 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-10798 Summary Calendar.,No. 04-10771.,04-10771.,04-10798 Summary Calendar. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Malcom J. WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant, United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael A. Watkins, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
William J. Stith, Law Offices of William J. Stith, Plano, TX, for Malcolm J. Watkins.
Carlton C. McLarty, Asst. Fed.Pub. Def., Dallas, TX, for Michael Watkins.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Malcom J. Watkins and Michael A. Watkins appeal from their conditional guilty-plea convictions and sentences for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine. They argue that the district court erred by denying their motions to suppress the evidence obtained from their encounter with police officers at the Dallas Amtrak station. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the district court properly denied their motions to suppress on the ground that the encounter did not amount to a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. See United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 200-01, 122 S.Ct. 2105, 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002); United States v. Chavez, 281 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir.2002).
The defendants also contend that the imposition of a firearm adjustment in both of their sentences violated their Sixth Amendment rights because the adjustments were based upon facts that were not admitted by them or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the defendants waived their right to appeal their convictions or sentences, those waivers will not be enforced in this appeal because the Government has failed to invoke those waivers. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 229-31 (5th Cir.2006).
The defendants were sentenced before the mandatory provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines were modified and rendered advisory by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Application of the firearm adjustments to the defendants' sentences violated their Sixth Amendment rights. Id. at 245, 125 S.Ct. 738. The defendants first raised their Sixth Amendment claim in a timely FED.R.CRIM.P. 35(a) motion, after the district court had orally pronounced the defendants' sentences. We conclude that they preserved the error. See United States v. Burling, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Campbell
...intended to correct a sentence that was unlawful. See Rico, 902 F.2d at 1068; Cook, 890 F.2d at 674—75; see also United States v. Watkins, 450 F.3d 184, 185 (5th Cir. 2006) (determining that a Rule 35(a) motion preserved a Sixth Amendment argument). We determine, as discussed below, that Ca......
-
United States v. Henderson
...of the case to the trial court for further action”—it applies this standard in a way that puts the opinion at odds with our own precedent, Watkins, and that of other circuits. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) provides that “[w]ithin 14 days after sentencing, the court may correct a ......
-
United States v. Hatley, 17-30288
...motion for reconsideration. Post-sentencing motions for reconsideration can preserve sentencing errors. See United States v. Watkins, 450 F.3d 184, 185 (5th Cir. 2006). Rule 35 motions are appropriate for "arithmetical, technical, or other clear error[s.]" FED. R. CRIM. P. 35(a). They are n......
-
U.S. v. Henderson
...a claim of error under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). United States v. Watkins, 450 F.3d 184, 185 (5th Cir.2006) (per curiam). Watkins does not control here, however, because the Booker error in that case was clear.2 It was thus correctable und......