Watts v. USA - 2255, No. 8:2020cv01596 - Document 2 (D. Md. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 5/3/2022. (c/m 5/3/2022 - mg3s, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Watts v. USA - 2255 Doc. 2 Case 8:20-cv-01596-PJM Document 2 Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * * V. RAYMOND ALLEN WATTS, * Civil No.PJM 20-1596 * Grim. No.PJM 06-0036 * * Petitioner-Defendant. * MEMORANDUM OPINION Raymond Allen Watts has filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (EOF No. 120). No hearing is necessary. See, e.g. United States v. JFTi/Ve, 366 F.3d 291, 302 (4th Cir. 2004). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the Motion. I. Background On January 25, 2006, Watts and his co-defendant Melvin Johnson were charged by Indictment with five counts of criminal conduct: conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count One); possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count Two); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(Count Three); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(Count Four).' ECF No. 1. On the morning Watts's trial was set to begin, October 31,2006, Watts instead entered a guilty plea as to Counts One and Four, and the Government agreed to,dismiss Counts Two and Three. See ECF No. 58. 'Count Five pertained only to Defendant Johnson. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 8:20-cv-01596-PJM Document 2 Filed 05/03/22 Page 2 of 7 Case 8:20-cv-01596-PJM Document 2 Filed 05/03/22 Page 3 of 7 Case 8:20-cv-01596-PJM Document 2 Filed 05/03/22 Page 4 of 7 Case 8:20-cv-01596-PJM Document 2 Filed 05/03/22 Page 5 of 7 Case 8:20-cv-01596-PJM Document 2 Filed 05/03/22 Page 6 of 7 Case 8:20-cv-01596-PJM Document 2 Filed 05/03/22 Page 7 of 7
]]>
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.
