USA v. Kenneth Donnell Watkins, No. 15-13274 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-13274 Date Filed: 04/20/2016 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-13274 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00101-KD-C-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KENNETH DONNELL WATKINS, a.k.a. Dino Watkins, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ________________________ (April 20, 2016) Before HULL, MARCUS, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. Case: 15-13274 Date Filed: 04/20/2016 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Watkins, proceeding with the assistance of counsel, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court did not err in concluding that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction, because his below-guideline 84-month sentence -- which resulted from a downward variance and not from a government motion for substantial assistance -was below his amended guideline range. Moreover, Watkins’s argument that the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2) violates the remedial goals of Booker * is foreclosed by precedent. See Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010). For background, see United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2013). AFFIRMED. * United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L. Ed.2d 621 (2005).
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.
