2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
4-7-2004 

# U SA v . W at son P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 01-2617

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . W ats on " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 864. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/864NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 01-2617

UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. ANTHONY WATS ON, Appellant

ON APPE AL FROM THE UNIT ED STA TES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE

EA STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA (Dist. Court No. 00-CR-313-05) Distri ct Court J

udge: Honorable J. Curt is Joy ner Argued March 29, 2004 Be for e: A LIT O, F ISH ER , and AL DI SE RT , Circuit Judges.

(Opinion Fi led: Apri l 7, 2004)
JER EM Y H .G. IBR AH IM 14 th Floor 121 South Broad Str eet The North American Buil ding Philadelphia, PA 19107 Counsel for

Appellant2 KAT HY A . STARK (Argued) Suite 1250 Office of the Unit ed State s Attorney 615 Chestnut St

reet Philadelphia, PA 19106 Counsel for

Appellee

OPINI ON OF THE COURT
PER CU RIA M : This is an ap peal from a judgm ent in a criminal ca se. Becau se we find W atson’s cl ai ms t o be wit

hou t me ri t, we af

fi rm. First , we h old tha t the D istrict Co urt w as no t clearly erron eous wh en it fo und that Watson had a manageri al rol e in the conspir acy. Witnesses test ifie d that Wats on ran a corner i n the conspiracy , that he hired at l east one worker to sel l crac k, and that he was frequent ly

seen with t

he leader s of the cons piracy . Furt hermore, the Dist

rict Court was not cle arly

erroneous when it found that the use or poss ession of a fire arm in the conspir acy was cl early

foreseeabl e. As a manager i n a sizea ble cra ck cocaine di stribution ring, in which two members had already been shot, the use of afirearm by a member of the c ons pira cy w as m ore than reas ona bly fo rese eab le. See United States v. Ramos , 147 F.3d 281 , 286- 287 (3d C ir. 1998 ); United States v. Dixon , 982 F.2d 116 (3d Cir. 1992 ). Seco nd, w e find that the Distric t Cou rt did no t abus e its discr etion w hen it3

adm itted the g over nm ent’s c harts a nd ex hibits su mm arizing the ele ctronic
com mu nica tion s be twe en th e co nsp irato rs. The government, through a wit ness and a public r ecord, was abl e to properly establ ish t

hat the tele phone and beeper numbers on the cha rts an d ex hib its w ere p rop erly attr ibu ted to W atso n. See , e.g. , Supp. App. at 133-135; 18 4- 18 5. F ur th er m or e, t he ch ar ts a nd ex hi bi ts w er e a cc ur ate ly ex pl ain ed by a government w itness, and the Dist rict Court did not

abuse it s discretion in finding t hem
mo re p rob ative than prejud icial. See Fed eral R ules o f Ev idenc e 403 and 1 006 ; United States v. Serafini , 233 F.3d 758, 768 fn. 14 (3d Cir. 2000 ). Third, the Dist

rict Court corr ectl y deni ed Watson’s moti on to suppre ss the money and drugs found at

the time of his arr est. The surveil lance offi cer saw Watson engagi ng in thr ee transacti ons that , based on her experie nce as a nar cotic s officer , she knew to be drug deals . Each time, Watson would talk to a cust omer, go i nto an abandoned l ot nearby , emerge wit

h an object , and exchange t he object for money. The police s topped Wats on f oran inve st ig at oryst op, an a ct io n that he a dmi ts was v al id . Up on s to ppi ng h im,
one o ffice r look ed in th e aba ndo ned lo t and s aw a M cD onald s’ plastic cup filled w ith crack. The police of

ficer found the cup almost immediat ely upon entering. Thus, t he seiz ure of th e cu p w as le gal b eca use it w as in plain view
. See Ho rton v . Califo rnia , 496 U.S. 128, 133- 134 (1990) (“ If an article is already in plain view, nei ther i ts obser vation nor it s seizure would involve any invasion of privacy .”) Upon finding the cra ck, the police arrested Wa tson, an d the m oney w as ob tained throu gh a v alid sea rch inc ident to4

W atso n’s a rrest . See , e.g. , Rawlings v. Kent ucky , 448 U .S. 911 (198 0). Fourt h, th e Di st

ri ct Cou rt pr ope rlyde te rmine d Wat so n’ s r el ev an t c ond uc t. As stated a bov e, significant e viden ce su ppo rts the co nclus ion tha t Wa tson w as a m anag er in the dru g con spirac y. Furtherm ore, sev eral w itnesse s place d him in the c onsp iracy for its entire two-y ear exi stence.

For th e ab ove re as ons , we aff ir m.