USA v. Watkins, et al, No. 05-11050 (5th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 15, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-11050 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PlaintiffAppellee, versus DAVID WATKINS also known as DAVID MICHAEL WATKINS, DefendantAppellant. ----------------------------------------------------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-37-ALL ----------------------------------------------------------------Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* David Watkins pleaded guiltypursuant to a written plea agreement to managing or controlling a drug-involved premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 and was sentenced to a 135-month term of imprisonment. Watkins argues that 1) the district court erred in determining the quantity of drugs attributable to him for sentencing purposes, 2) his sentence is unreasonable, and * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 3) decisions of this court following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), have rendered the Sentencing Guidelines constructively mandatory. We review Watkins s challenge to the drug quantity attributable to him for sentencing purposes for plain error. See United States v. Alvarado-Santilano, 434 F.3d 794, 795 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1812 (2006). Because Watkins did not offer any evidence to show that the Presentence Report (PSR) was unreliable or that its factual findings were untrue, the district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise, by accepting the PSR s drug quantity determination. See United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 248 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F.3d 154, 164 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1020 (2006). Watkins s sentence, at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range, is presumed reasonable, and Watkins has not rebutted that presumption. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). Watkins s argument that decisions of this court, including United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005), and Alonzo, rendered the Guidelines constructively mandatory is unconvincing. Moreover, a panel of this court may not overrule another panel s decision without en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary Supreme Court decision. See United States v. Ruff, 984 F.2d 635, 640 (5th Cir. 1993). AFFIRMED.

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.