U.S. v. Watts, 90-2899
| Decision Date | 31 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-2899,90-2899 |
| Citation | 940 F.2d 332 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Carl Joseph WATTS, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Tracy L. Templeton, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Patricia A. McGarry, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and RE, * Chief Judge.
After Carl Joseph Watts pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine, the district court sentenced him to two concurrent terms of eighteen months in prison. Watts appeals his sentence contending the district court committed error in enhancing his sentence for obstruction of justice. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.1 (Nov. 1, 1989). We affirm.
Under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.1, a district court can enhance the offense level of a defendant who "willfully impeded or obstructed, or attempted to impede or obstruct the administration of justice." When Watts was sentenced, this section applied without qualification to defendants who attempted to destroy or conceal material evidence. U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.1 application note 1(a) (Nov. 1, 1989). The district court enhanced Watts's offense level under section 3C1.1 because Watts threw a package of cocaine out a car window while the car was being closely followed by police officers in an unmarked vehicle that was flashing its headlights. Watts had just purchased cocaine from his drug supplier for resale to the car's driver, an undercover government agent. After the agent pulled the car over at the officers' request, the officers arrested Watts and recovered the cocaine Watts had thrown from the car.
To justify an enhancement under section 3C1.1, the defendant must act "wilfully." This means the defendant must "consciously act with the purpose of obstructing justice." United States v. Stroud, 893 F.2d 504, 507 (2d Cir.1990) (emphasis omitted); see also United States v. Gardiner, 931 F.2d 33, 35 (10th Cir.1991); United States v. Teta, 918 F.2d 1329, 1333 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Lofton, 905 F.2d 1315, 1316-17 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 365, 112 L.Ed.2d 328 (1990).
Watts asserts he did not consciously act with the purpose of obstructing justice because he did not know that he was being followed by police officers or that he was under investigation. Watts, however, said he threw the cocaine out the car window because he was afraid. Although this is a close case, we believe the district court properly inferred Watts's intent to obstruct justice under the circumstances. While being followed by plainclothes police officers, Watts became apprehensive and threw away cocaine. We believe it is reasonable to infer Watts thought he was being followed by law enforcement authorities, thought his arrest was imminent, and attempted to get rid of evidence. Cf. United States v. Blackman, 904 F.2d 1250, 1259 (8th Cir.1990) ().
After the district court sentenced Watts, the sentencing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Beckley
...not applied retroactively to defendant); United States v. Dortch, 923 F.2d 629, 632 n. 2 (8th Cir.1991) (same); United States v. Watts, 940 F.2d 332, 333 (8th Cir.1991) (same). See also United States v. Stinson, 957 F.2d 813, 815 (11th Cir.1991) (amendment to commentary to § 4B1.2 not effec......
-
U.S. v. Dierling
...There was enough evidence to show that Dierling "consciously act[ed] with the purpose of obstructing justice." United States v. Watts, 940 F.2d 332, 332-33 (8th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Stroud, 893 F.2d 504, 507 (2d Dierling argues that the court improperly assessed a two level e......
-
U.S. v. Dale
...v. Belletiere, 971 F.2d 961, 965 (3d Cir.1992); United States v. Hernandez, 967 F.2d 456, 459 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Watts, 940 F.2d 332, 332-33 (8th Cir.1991); United States v. Altman, 901 F.2d 1161, 1164 (2d 5. The Government asserts that, because Mr. Dale did not object before......
-
U.S. v. Lincoln
...Based on the circumstances, the district court properly inferred Lincoln intended to obstruct justice. See United States v. Watts, 940 F.2d 332, 333 (8th Cir.1991). We therefore conclude the district court did not err in applying the obstruction of justice enhancement to In addition to the ......