Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01505/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01505-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Thomas E. Watson-El
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1505

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Thomas E. Watson-El, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 3, 2006

Filed: April 5, 2006 

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Thomas E. Watson-El guilty of conspiring to make, utter, or

possess counterfeit checks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 513. The district

court1

 sentenced him, after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), to 18

months in prison and 3 years of supervised release and ordered him to pay $34,376.45

in restitution. On appeal, Watson-El’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Watson-El has filed a pro

se supplemental brief and motion for the appointment of new counsel. Together,

Appellate Case: 05-1505 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2006 Entry ID: 2029344
-2-

Watson-El and his counsel present four arguments, all of which we reject for the

reasons discussed below.

First, we conclude that Watson-El could be retried because the district court did

not clearly err in finding that the prosecutor did not intentionally provoke a mistrial.

See United States v. Beeks, 266 F.3d 880, 883 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review).

Second, the district court did not apply an enhancement for the number of victims of

Watson-El’s offense. Third, we conclude that Watson-El waived his challenge to the

amount of restitution when his lawyer withdrew his objection and reached an

agreement with the government on the restitution amount. See United States v.

Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526-27 (8th Cir. 2002) (where defendant’s lawyer raised

but then withdrew objection, defendant waived issue under United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725 (1993), and was precluded from arguing it on appeal). Fourth, the

inclusion of aggravating Guidelines factors in the charging information in response

to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), did not convert them into elements

of the offense and did not prejudice Watson-El. See United States v. Sherman, No.

05-1058, 2006 WL 625715, at *2 (8th Cir. Mar. 15, 2006). 

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and deny Watson-El’s motion for the appointment of new counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1505 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2006 Entry ID: 2029344