Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40153/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40153-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Wayne Alan Watson
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40153

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WAYNE ALAN WATSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-50-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wayne Alan Watson appeals his convictions after a jury trial of armed 

bank robbery. He argues that the district court erred in denying him a 

continuance so he could retain expert witnesses to review cell phone and 

computer data he received from the Government during discovery. He also 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 22, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-40153 Document: 00515281448 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2020
No. 19-40153

2

argues that the denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion because

substitute counsel did not have adequate time to prepare a defense.

We review the district court’s denial of a continuance for an abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2009). 

“[T]he movant must show that the denial resulted in specific and compelling 

or serious prejudice.” United States v. Barnett, 197 F.3d 138, 144 (5th Cir. 

1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will uphold the district court’s 

decision, even if it was harsh, if it was not arbitrary or unreasonable. 

Stalnaker, 571 F.3d at 439.

Watson’s assertion of prejudice is unsupported and speculative. He does 

not explain how the denial of a continuance prejudiced him or affected his 

counsel’s performance at trial. Thus, he has not alleged, much less 

demonstrated, that he suffered “specific and compelling or serious prejudice.” 

Barnett, 197 F.3d at 144 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see 

Stalnaker, 571 F.3d at 439. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. Watson’s motion to relieve counsel, appoint substitute counsel, 

and restart the briefing schedule is DENIED as untimely. See United States 

v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902 (5th Cir. 1998).

Case: 19-40153 Document: 00515281448 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2020