USA v. Watson, No. 05-31094 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 24, 2008.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-31094 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL A. WATSON, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (3:04-CR-186-ALL) -------------------Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant Michael A. Watson appeals his guilty-plea conviction for use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, a violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 924(c)(1)(A). Watson traded a quantity of drugs to an undercover agent in exchange for a handgun. Watson specifically reserved the right to appeal whether this factual basis was sufficient to support his conviction for use of a firearm under the statute. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Watson acknowledges our decisions in United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254 (5th Cir. 1994), and United States v. Ulloa, 94 F.3d 949 (5th Cir. 1996), but he argues that these decisions are distinguishable and thus not controlling. He asserts that, in his case, government agents first proposed trading drugs for the handgun, that he controlled the handgun for only moments before his arrest, and that he could not have used the handgun because it was unloaded. suggests We conclude, however, that nothing in Zuniga or Ulloa that determination any of of these factors use or otherwise are material render those to the cases distinguishable. Watson also asks us to reconsider Zuniga and Ulloa in light of contrary decisions from other circuits. It is a firm rule of this circuit that in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court, a panel cannot overrule a prior panel s decision. Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED. 2
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.
