Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02847/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02847-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Charles Anthony Watson
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the

Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2847

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

* Northern District of Iowa.

Charles Anthony Watson, also known * 

as Big Country, also known as * 

Mississippi, also known as Tony, * 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 10, 2007

 Filed: April 2, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Charles Watson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

500 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a protected location, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846, 851 and 860 and conspiracy to carry a

firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and

924(o). The district court1

 declined to depart downward under the Guidelines and also

Appellate Case: 06-2847 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294508
-2-

denied Watson's requests for a variance. Watson appeals, arguing that his sentence is

unreasonable because his co-defendant's sentence was substantially less. We affirm.

I. Background

Watson enlisted several associates to help him steal drugs from a rival dealer.

Watson asked Eric Sallis, Michael Bruce, and Dontay Hoosman to help him ambush

his competitor at a designated location. When they arrived, Bruce and Sallis carried

firearms, but Sallis' weapon was not loaded. During the ambush, Bruce shot and killed

one of Watson's rivals. All four men were arrested and charged with various crimes

stemming from the incident.

 Watson and Sallis pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a protected location and

to conspiracy to carry a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. At sentencing,

the district court imposed a sentence of 305 months' imprisonment on Watson. Sallis,

on the other hand, was sentenced to 136 months' imprisonment. The district court

refused to grant Watson a felony-murder departure under the Guidelines. The court

also refused to grant a variance based on the disparity between Watson's and Sallis'

sentences. Watson appeals both decisions. We affirm. 

II. Discussion

We review the district court's application of the Guidelines de novo and its

factual findings for clear error. United States v. Tjaden, 473 F.3d 877, 879 (8th Cir.

2007). We review the ultimate sentence for reasonableness, which is akin to the

abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.

A sentence within the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United

States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 718 (8th Cir. 2005). However, we review the sentence

imposed for reasonableness under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), even if the sentence is within

the Guidelines range. United States v. Tobacco, 428 F.3d 1148, 1150–51 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 06-2847 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294508
2

Comment 2(B) of U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1 allows the district court to grant a

downward departure in offenses that involve a felony murder, "[i]f the defendant did

not cause the death intentionally or knowingly . . . "

3

While Watson's brief is unclear,we assume that he is not arguing that he is

entitled to a downward departure under the Guidelines in order to reduce the

discrepancy between his and Sallis' sentence. We have repeatedly rejected this

argument. See Anderson, 446 F.3d at 877 ("[T]he district court correctly recognized

that a sentencing disparity among co-defendants is not a proper basis for a departure

-3-

2005). Whether a sentence is reasonable in light of § 3553(a) is reviewed for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Hadash, 408 F.3d 1080, 1083 (8th Cir. 2005). A

sentencing court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider a relevant factor that should

have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant

factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment

in weighing those factors. United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005).

A. Felony Murder Departure

Watson argues that the district court erred by declining to exercise its discretion

to grant him a felony-murder downward departure.2

 We have repeatedly held that

when a district court is aware of its discretion to depart downward and elects not to

exercise this discretion, then that decision is unreviewable. United States v. Lee, 451

F.3d 914, 918 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Anderson, 446 F.3d 870, 877 (8th

Cir.2006). The record is clear, and Watson does not dispute, that the district court was

aware of its discretion. Therefore, we have no authority to review the district court's

decision.

B. Sentencing Disparity

Watson's sentence included a term of imprisonment of 305 months, while codefendant Sallis received a term of imprisonment of 136 months. Watson argues that

the district court should have granted him a variance, in accordance with the § 3553(a)

factors, to avoid significant sentencing disparities between equally situated offenders.3

Appellate Case: 06-2847 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294508
under the guidelines"); United States v. Polanco, 53 F.3d 893, 897 (8th Cir. 1995)

("Disparity between sentences imposed on codefendants is not a proper basis for

departure"); United States v. Granados, 962 F.2d 767, 774 (8th Cir. 1992) ("A

defendant cannot rely upon his co-defendant's sentence as a yardstick for his own; a

sentence is not disproportionate just because it exceeds a co-defendant's sentence").

-4-

Watson contends his sentence is unreasonable because the court did not grant such a

variance. 

Watson bases his argument upon our holding in United States v. Lazenby, 439

F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2006). This reliance is misplaced. In Lazenby, we expressed

concern about disparate sentences among co-conspirators based upon a district court's

decision to give one defendant an 83% downward variance, while declining to give

such a variance to the other. Id. at 932. We were particularly sensitive to the fact that

the defendant who received the downward variance was the more culpable of the two.

Id. at 933.

This case is distinguishable from Lazenby. Here, the disparate sentences derive

from different departures based upon legitimate distinctions between Sallis and

Watson, not the result of different variances. Sallis received a downward departure for

felony murder, along with reductions for acceptance of responsibility and substantial

government assistance. U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1, cmt. 2(B), 2A1.1, 5K1.1. In contrast,

Watson received several enhancements because his participation in the conspiracy

involved a handgun and was committed within 1,000 feet of a protected area. U.S.S.G.

§§ 2D1.1(b)(1), 2D1.2(a)(2). Watson received an additional enhancement after the

court determined that he was the conspiracy's leader. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a).

Further, and unlike in Lazenby, the district court found that Watson was the

more culpable of the two defendants. Watson planned the ambush and recruited Sallis.

Watson insisted that Sallis be armed. Watson conceived the ambush for his financial

gain. Watson, unlike Sallis, was aware that Bruce was armed. These distinctions

Appellate Case: 06-2847 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294508
-5-

account for any apparent disparity in Watson's sentence. Watson does not challenge

any of the factual findings underlying his sentence. We hold that the district court did

not impose an unreasonable sentence.

III. Conclusion

For the forgoing reasons, the sentence imposed by the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2847 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/02/2007 Entry ID: 3294508