United States v. Patrick Watson, No. 12-1250 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Sentence was not unreasonable; pro se arguments regarding acceptance of guilty plea and mandatory minimum sentence rejected.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1250 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Patrick H. Watson, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: August 22, 2012 Filed: September 4, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Patrick Watson pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute at least 28 grams of a mixture containing cocaine base, and distributing cocaine base near a playground, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, 860(a). The district court1 sentenced him to 180 months in prison, which was below the applicable Guidelines range. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he seeks to withdraw and challenges the reasonableness of the sentence. Pro se, Watson moves for new counsel and raises several challenges to the conspiracy conviction and his sentence. As to the pro se arguments, we conclude the district court did not err by accepting Watson s guilty plea to the conspiracy count, or by finding that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). See United States v. Christenson, 653 F.3d 697, 699-700 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing for plain error a claim of insufficient factual basis for guilty plea where issue was raised and withdrawn in district court); United States v. Resinos, 631 F.3d 886, 888 n.1 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (per curiam) (aggregation of drug amounts is permissible where count of conviction includes conspiracy to violate § 841(a)(1)); cf. United States Kincannon, 567 F.3d 893, 897-99 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming conviction where indictment alleged defendant conspired with others known and unknown and evidence showed conspiracy with another person even if it did not show conspiracy with person named in indictment). As to counsel s argument, we conclude the sentence was reasonable and was supported by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we deny Watson s motion, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -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.
