United States v. Jonathan Watkins, No. 20-2107 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's appeal waiver did not bar consideration of his sentencing issue; the district court did not plainly err when it did not review the government's refusal to file a motion to file a substantial assistance motion; in any event, defendant received the sentence he requested and he cannot demonstrate his substantial rights were affected.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2107 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Jonathan T. Watkins lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: December 4, 2020 Filed: December 9, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jonathan T. Watkins appeals the sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. His counsel has moved 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court procedurally erred in applying an enhancement to his base offense level, and Watkins’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. We conclude the district court did not err in applying the sentencing enhancement. See United States v. Kirlin, 859 F.3d 539, 543 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review); U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1(a)(2), 4B1.2(a). We also conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and discussing substantive reasonableness). Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
