US v. Eric Watts, No. 08-4655 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4655 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC RICHARD WATTS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00452-MBS-12) Submitted: January 15, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and January 22, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric Richard Watts appeals his sentence on his conviction of conspiracy to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยงยง 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). The sole issue on appeal is whether there exists an improper sentencing discrepancy between the district court s oral pronouncement and the criminal judgment such that Watts sentence should resentencing. be vacated and the case remanded for We find no error. Review of the record reveals that the district court granted Watts a three-level downward departure, based on the Government s motion, as well as a downward variance of twentyone months from the bottom of a properly calculated advisory guideline range, and imposed a sentence of forty-two months imprisonment. In its oral pronouncement, the district court imposed the forty-two month sentence, stating that the twentyone month variance extraordinary was based rehabilitation, and on Watts motion a credit for alleging time Watts previously had served in state custody. While the written order of district judgment does not reflect the court s oral pronouncement regarding the state sentence credit, the sentence reflected on the judgment order 2 reflects the same orally- pronounced Moreover, sentence the of accompanying forty-two Statement months of imprisonment. Reasons, issued in conjunction with the criminal judgment, clearly states that the twenty-one month variance was based upon previous time Watts served in state custody. Accordingly, we find no error in the judgment order or any contradiction between the oral pronouncement and the criminal judgment regarding the state sentence such that remand is necessary. We affirm Watts sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
