1

14

- 1302

- cr United States v. Watson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY O RDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Squar e, in the City of New York, on the 10 th day of February

, two thousand and f ifteen

.

Present: PETER W. HALL,

RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

Circuit Judge s,

JEFFREY A LKER MEYER, 

District Judge.

____________________________________________________

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Appellee

,

v. No. 14

- 1302

- cr

R AWSON E DWARD W ATSON , AKA S EALED D EFENDANT 1,

Defendant

-

Appellant

.

For Appellant : R ANDOLPH Z.V OLKELL , Merrick, New York.

 Hon. Jeffrey Alker Meyer, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.2

For Appellee : S HANE T. S TANSBURY , and Karl Metzner (on the brief), for Preet Bharara,

United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York

.

____________________________________________________ Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of

New York (Sullivan, J. ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that this appeal is DISMISSED

.

Defendant

- Appellant Rawson Edward Watson (“Watson ”) appeals from a final judgment

and sentence entered by the United States District Court for the Southern Distric t of New York

. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the legal

issues presented by this appeal

.

It is uncontested that Watson did not reserve

, and has therefore waived , his right to

appeal the issue of whether 21 U.S.C. § 959(b)(2) applies extraterritorially. “Ge nerally, in order

to reserve an issue for appeal after a guilty plea, a defendant must obtain the approval of the

court and the consent of the government, and he must reserve the ri ght to appeal in writing.”

United States v. Rubin , 743 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir. 2014 ) (in ternal quotation marks omitted)

. Watson did none of these things. Nonetheless, he argues that we may reach the merits of his

appeal because the issue he raises is jurisdi ctional in nature. See United States v. Garcia

, 339

F.3d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 2003) (“It is well settled that a defendant who knowingly and voluntarily

enters a guilty plea waives all non

- jurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings.”). Watson’s

argument must be rejected, however, as it is directly contradicted by clear and binding precedent.

See Morrison v. Nat’l Austl

. Bank Ltd. , 561 U .S. 247, 253

- 54 (2010) (holding that the

extraterritorial reach of a statutory provision is a merits question); United S tates v. Yousef , 7503

F.3d 254, 26 1

- 63 (2d Cir. 2014) (applying Morrison in the criminal context), cert. denied , 135

S. Ct. 248 (2014).

We have considered Watson ’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, Watson’s appeal is DISMI SSED

.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk