United States v. Valarie Watson, No. 21-1867 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Grasz, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's above-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable; defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into her guilty plea agreement and understood she could receive an above-guidelines sentence.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1867 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Valarie Watson lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: August 30, 2021 Filed: September 2, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Valarie Watson appeals the above-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court after she pleaded guilty to making a false statement to a federal agency. Her 1 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging her sentence. Watson has filed a pro se brief arguing that she did not understand she could be sentenced above the Guidelines range. Upon careful review, we conclude the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors; this court must give due deference to district court’s determination that § 3553(a) factors justify variance); see also United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d 466, 469-70 (8th Cir. 2010) (upward variance was reasonable where court made individualized assessment based on facts presented). As to the arguments in Watson’s pro se brief, we conclude the plea hearing transcript shows that she knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement, and that she understood she could be sentenced above the Guidelines range. See United States v. Green, 521 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2008) (whether plea was knowing and voluntary is reviewed de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-91 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (one important way district court can ensure plea agreement is knowing and voluntary is to question defendant about decision to enter into agreement); see also Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion 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.
