US v. Yahya Watson, No. 08-4524 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4524 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. YAHYA WATSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00396-CMH-1) Submitted: February 25, 2009 Decided: March 23, 2009 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew A. Wartel, LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW A. WARTEL, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney; Stephen Sola, Kristin A. Taylor, Special Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yahya Watson appeals from a 324-month sentence imposed after his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 841(a)(1) (2006). Watson argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, on the basis that he was informed at his plea hearing that he faced a statutory minimum sentence of ten years, whereas he actually faced a statutory minimum sentence of twenty years. Watson cited United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400 (4th Cir. 1995), in support of his motion to withdraw. Because we hold that the error was harmless and did not affect Watson s substantial rights, we affirm. This court generally reviews the adequacy of a guilty plea proceeding de novo. See United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561, 564 n.2 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir. 1995)). are reviewed court under ultimately a harmless asks whether Rule 11 violations, however, error the standard. error defendant s decision to plead guilty. likely Id. See id. affected The the Any variance from the Rule 11 requirements that does not affect the substantial rights of the defendant is disregarded. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 117 (4th Cir. 1991). 2 Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B), Watson needed to provide the court a fair and just reason for withdrawal. The court evaluates the proffered reason in light of whether the plea was knowing and voluntary; the defendant has credibly asserted his legal innocence; the length of delay between the entry of the plea and the filing of the motion to withdraw; whether the defendant had close assistance of competent counsel; whether withdrawal will prejudice the government; and whether withdrawal will resources. See United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). inconvenience the court or waste judicial Denial of a motion to withdraw is proper if the first four factors all weigh against the movant, as the last two factors are counterbalancing considerations. Id. In Goins, this court found that the district court erred when it failed to advise the appellant of the mandatory minimum sentence guidelines addition, range the of of court five 33 to found years, 41 above months. that the 51 error the then-mandatory F.3d at was not 404. In harmless because Goins was not otherwise aware of the mandatory minimum and Goins counsel was not aware of the mandatory minimum. Id. at and 404-05. Thus, the court vacated remanded so that Goins could replead. Goins conviction Id. Unlike Goins, Watson faced a guidelines imprisonment range well above the statutory minimum, and he was aware of his 3 expected guidelines range, as evidenced by a letter sent to him by counsel who represented him when he pled guilty, discussing the possibility of his sentence being reduced from thirty years to twenty-four years. Although the letter discusses the possibility of further reduction in Watson s sentence through cooperation with the necessarily have been Watson s statutory ultimate Government, foreclosed sentence minimum, so statutory enhancement. that his of by 324 sentence possibility the months was would statutory is not well not minimum. above affected by the the In addition, Watson has not argued that he would not have pled guilty if he had known of the statutory minimum sentence. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
