# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 17 23

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ja m es Edward W at so n, J r.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

12 , 20 18 Fi le d: Ju ly 13, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ja m es W at so n was co nv ic te d aft er t r i a l on on e co un t of di st rib ut in g fiv e or

m or e gr am s of act ua l m et h a mp h e t am in e, an d was se nt en ced to 18 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. He ap pe al s.I.

The Ark an sa s Seco nd Ju di ci al Dis tri ct Dru g Task Fo rce co nd uc te d op erat io ns
ag ai ns t rep eat , vi ol en t dr ug of fen de rs

. Bel ie vi ng W at so n to be su ch an of fen de r, th e
ta sk fo rce em

pl oyed a co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t (CI) to m ak e co nt ro ll ed bu y s of

m et ha m ph et am in e fro m

W at so n.

On Aug us t 29
, 20 14
, th e CI arra ng ed to m eet W at so n to bu y m et ha m phe ta m in e. The co nt ro ll ed bu y to ok an ex te nd ed pe rio d of ti m e, an d th e CI tra ve le d wit h W at so n
t o s ev eral di ffer en t lo cat io ns

. Alt ho ug h th e ta sk fo rce cap tu red m uc h of th e
tra ns act io n on au di o an d vi de o su rv ei ll an ce, it di d no t cap tu re ev erythi ng

. Thu s, th e

co m pl et e co ur se of ev en ts is kn o w n on ly to W at so n an d th e CI. In th e en d, th e CI

sa id he pa id W at so n $ 3,0 00 for ab ou t 3 6 g ram s o f act ua l m et ha m ph et am in e.

O n Sep te m

be r 19
, 20 14
, th e CI ag ai n so ug ht to bu y m et ha m ph et am in e f

r o m W at so n. W at so n an d th e CI se t up th e ex ch an ge , an d th e co nt ro ll ed bu y was cap tu red

on au di o an d v i d e o s u r ve il la nc e. W at so n pu rp or te d to se ll th e in fo rm an t

m et ha m ph et am in e, bu t t he su bs ta nc e la te r tu rn ed ou t t o b e ep so m sal t.

A gr an d jury in di ct ed W at so n wit h on e co un t of di st rib ut in g fiv e or m or e gr am s of act ua l m et ha m

ph et am in e fo r th e Aug us t 29
, 20 14
, co nt ro ll ed bu y

. See 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(B)

. The cas e pr oc eed e d to tri al

. Two pi eces of ev id en ce are
pa rti cu la rly relev an t o n a pp eal

.

Fi rs t is ev id en ce of W at so n’s hi st or y of vi ol en ce, whi ch th e go ve rn m en t so ug ht

to in tro du ce to cl ari fy why th e ta sk fo rce be cam e in te res te d in W at so n. Befo re tri al
, th e go ve rn m en t ha d so ug ht to ex cl ud e an y te st im on y ab ou t an ex ces si ve fo rce la wsu it th at W at so n h ad fil ed ag ai ns t on e of th e ta sk for ce o ffi cers in vo lv ed in th e cri m in al

cas e. That laws ui t was set tl ed rig ht aro un d th e ti m e of th e co nt ro ll ed bu y s at is su e.

-2

-W at so n ob

jecte d. The di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at W at so n co ul d pr es en t ev id en ce of hi s 1
th eo ry th at he was ta rg et ed be cau se he ha d fil ed a la wsu it ag ai ns t on e of th e ta sk fo rce

m em be rs —b ut if he di d, th at wou ld o p en th e do or to al lo win g th e go ve rn m en t to in tro du ce, in reb ut ta l, ev id en ce of W at so n ’s p r i or ba d act s to sh ow th at th e ta sk fo rce’s i nt eres t was th e res ul t o f hi s h is to ry of v io le nc e, rat he r th an ret al ia ti on

.

At tri al
, du rin g cro ss -ex am in at io n of th e of fic er he ha d su ed
, W at so n in ti m at ed th at th e ta sk f

o rce ta rg et ed W at so n in ret al ia ti on fo r th e ex ces si ve fo rce su it

. At a be nc h co nf

eren ce, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at so m e, bu t no t al l, of th e ba d act s

co ul d co m e in be cau se W at so n ha d op en ed th e do or

. The go ve rn m en t sa id it wan te d

to in tro du ce t es ti m on y

of th ree all eg at io ns : (1) W at so n h ad he at ed a kn ife an d u se d i t to bu rn th e th ig hs of a vi ct im , ( 2) W at so n ha d co m m it te d do m es ti c vi ol en c e , a n d (3 ) W at so n ha d as sa ul te d po li ce of fic ers

. W at so n ob

jecte d to th e rel ia bi li ty of th es e al le ga ti on s, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d th e ob jecti on an d ad m it te d th e ev id en ce.

The se co nd pi ece of ev id en ce is th e Sep te m be r 19
, 20 14
, co nt ro ll ed bu y , whi ch

n et te d on ly ep so m sa lt

. Ove r W at so n’s ob jecti on , th e go ve rn m en t in tro d u c e d

te st im on y fro m th e CI an d vi de o of th e tra ns act io n. The CI te st ifi ed th at W at so n ha d

co nt act ed hi m ab ou t do in g an ot he r de al
, an d th e CI ha d as ke d fo r fo ur ou nc es of

m et ha m ph et am in e. The tra ns act io n o ccu rred ou ts id e W at so n’s ho us e an d was de pi ct ed on th e v id eo

.

At th e cl os e of th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e, W at so n m ov ed fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al ba se d on in su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

. The ju r y
ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t o f gu il ty.

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-3

-A t se nte nc in g, th e go ve rn m en t so ug ht an en ha nc ed sta tut or y m ini m um se nte nc e
pu rs ua nt to 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(B) , hav in g pre vi ou sl y se rv ed th e req ui si te no ti ce

an d at ta ch ed a reco rd of W at so n’s st at e fel on y co nv ic ti on fo r co cai ne po ss es si on

. See
21 U.S.C. § 85 1. W at so n ob jecte d, arg ui ng th at do ub li ng th e st at ut or y m in im um fro m fiv e to te n y ears w as cru el an d un us ua l pu ni sh m en t. He al so ob jecte d to th e cal cu la ti on of hi s cri m in al hi st or y sc or e, cl ai m in g th at th e pr es en te nc e rep or t sc or ed ch arg es th at ha d be en di sm is se d. W it h th e en ha nc ed m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce, W at so n’s Gui de li ne s ran ge was 12 0 to 13 7 m on th s. The di st ric t co ur t va rie d up ward

to 18 0 m on th s, b as ed lar ge ly on Wats on ’s pat te rn of v io le nt co nd uc t.

II.

W at so n ap pe al s bo th hi s co nv ic ti on an d hi s se nt en ce. Not al l of th e arg um en ts W at so n m ak es on ap pe al m at ch th os e he m ad e in th e di st ric t co ur t. As to th os e
arg um en ts , whe re W at so n di d no t gi ve th e di st ric t co ur t an op po rtu ni ty to ru le on hi s
pr oc ed ur al arg um en ts in th e fir st in st an ce, we ap pl y pl ai n erro r rev ie w. See Jo hn so n

v. Uni te d St at es , 52 0 U.S. 46 1, 46 5– 66 (1 99 7)

. Und er th at st an da rd
, we wil l rev ers e

on ly if W at so n sh ows “ th at th ere wa s a n e r r o r , th e erro r is cl ear or ob vi ou s un de r

cu rren t la w, th e erro r affe ct ed [h is ] su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, an d th e erro r se rio us ly affe ct s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Uni te d St at es v. Po it ra, 6 48 F.3d 88 4, 8 87 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

A.

1. Evid en ti ar

y Err or s

W at so n arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by all owi ng th e jury to he ar ab ou t hi s pr io r vi ol e n t a ct s an d th e Sep te m be r 19
, 20 14
, co nt ro ll ed bu y

. To th e ex te nt W at so n ob

jecte d t o a d mi s si on of th is ev id en ce in th e di st ric t co ur t, we rev ie w ad m is si on of ev id en ce fo r a c l e a r a b u s e of di sc ret io n an d wil l rev ers e on ly if

-4

-ad m is si on affe ct ed W at so n’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. Uni te d St at es v. P i c a r d i
, 73 9 F.3 d

11 18 , 11 24 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.

We l o o k f

i rs t to W at so n’s pr io r vi ol en t act s: us in g a he at ed kn ife to bu rn a vi ct im
, co m

m it ti ng d o mes t i c vi ol en ce, an d as sa ul ti ng a po li ce of fic er. At or al

arg um en t, Wa ts on co nc ed ed th at he op en ed th e do or to th is te st im on y

. Bu t, he

arg ue s, he di d no t op en th e do or wid e en o u g h t o a d mi t th e th ree hi gh ly pr ejud ic ia l al le ga ti on s in tro du ced by th e go ve rn m en t. Thi s is es se nt ia ll y a Ru le 40 3 arg um en t. Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 3 gr an ts th e di st ric t co ur t po wer to ex cl ud e rel ev an t

ev id en ce “ if it s pr ob at iv e va lu e is su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by a da ng er of

. . . un fai r
pr ejud ic e.” “ Unf

ai r pr ejud ic e m ean s an un du e te nd en cy to su g g e s t de ci si on on an im pr op er ba si s, co m

m on ly, th ou gh no t ne ces sa ril y , an em ot io na l on e.” Uni te d St at es v. Lu pi no , 30 1 F .3d 64 2, 6 46 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2) (cl ean ed up ).

Bu t W at so n di d no t rai se pr ejud ic e in th e di st ric t co ur t. He ob jecte d on ly th at th e rep or ts m ay no t be rel ia bl e, so we rev ie w th is i s s u e f o r p l a in erro r. It ap pe ars ob vi ou s th at th e th ree fact s th e go ve rn m en t pu t in to ev id en ce are in de ed pr ejud ic ia l.
It is no t, ho wev er, cl ear or ob vi ou s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d i n w e i g h in g th at
pr ejud ic e ag ai n s t t h e p r ob at iv e va lu e of th e ev id en ce to ex pl ai n th e ta sk fo rce’s

m ot iv at io n fo r ta rg et in g W at so n. Mo reo ve r, th e di st ric t co ur t fo re w arned W at so n th at th e pr ejud ic ia l fact s wou ld be ad m it te d if he qu es ti on ed ta sk fo rce of fic ers ab ou t th e

ex ces si ve fo rce su it

. W he n W at so n op en ed th e do or , th e di st ric t c o u r t l im it ed th e
go ve rn m en t to th e th ree fact s in qu es ti on

. And whe n th e di st ric t co ur t as ke d W at so n if he wan te d to make a reco rd on th e fact s th e go ve rn m en t ch os e, W at so n’s on ly ob jecti on was th at th e ev id en ce was no t rel ia bl e. Und e r t h es e ci rcu m st an ces , we di sc ern no pl ai n a bu se of d is cret io n.

W e ne xt co ns id er th e ev id en ce of th e at te m pt ed co nt ro ll ed bu y on Sep te m be r 19
, 20 14

. W at so n a r g ue s th at th is ev id en ce was in ad m is si bl e pr op en si ty ev id en ce

un de r Ru le 40 4( b) (1 ); th e go ve rn m en t rep li es th at it was in tri ns ic
, “ of fere d fo r th e

-5

-pu rp os e of pr ov id in g th e co nt ex t in whi ch th e ch arg ed cri m e oc cu rred .” Uni te d St at es

v. Tho m as , 76 0 F.3 d 87 9, 88 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 46 3
F.3 d 80 3, 80 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )). W e ne ed no t res ol ve th is di sp ut e be cau se , ev en if

ex tri n s i c , t h e ev id en ce in qu es ti on sa ti sf ie s Ru le 40 4( b) (2 ). Und er th is Ru le
,

“ [e]vi de nc e of a cri m e, wro ng , or ot he r act

. . . m ay be ad m is si bl e” fo r th e pu rp os e of

“ pr ov in g

. . . in te nt

. . . [o r] kn owl ed ge .” Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 4( b)

. W at so n’s kn owl ed ge

an d in te nt were at is su e f o r t w o reas on s: 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) req ui res th at de fen da nt s kn ow th ey are di st rib ut in g a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e, an d W at so n arg ue d th at he ha d be en se t up by th e CI. The di sp ut ed ev id en ce, an d th e CI’s te st i mo n y in

pa rti cu la r, te n d e d to sh ow th at W at so n kn owi ng ly an d in te nt io na ll y en ga ge d in th e

sa le of dr ug s— ev en i f

, i n th is pa rti cu la r in st an ce, he pa ss ed of f ep so m sa lt as

m et ha m ph et am in e. Tha t th e Sep te m be r 19, 2014
, sa le oc cu rred aft er th e ch arg ed dr ug
tra ns act io n is in su ffi ci en t, in th is cas e, to mak e ad m is si on of th is ev id en ce a cl ear ab us e o f di sc ret io n. 2

2. Var ia nc e

Nex t, W at so n arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t im pe rm is si bl y va rie d fro m th e fact s ch arg ed in th e i n d i c t m en t. “ A va ria nc e ari se s whe n th e ev id en ce pr es en te d pr ov es fact s th at are ‘m at eri a l l y d iff eren t fro m th os e al le ge d in th e in di ct m en t.’” Uni te d
St at es v. Bu ch an an , 57 4 F.3 d 55 4, 56 4– 65 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Beg na ud
, 78 3 F.2 d 14 4, 14 7 n.4 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 )). “ W he re the in di ct m en t ‘ fu ll y an d fai rly’ ap pr is es t h e de fen da nt of th e al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t whi ch he m us t de fen d,

pr ejud ic e is ab se nt an d an y va ria nc e is ha rm le ss erro r.” Id

. W e rev ie w th is is su e de

no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Col e, 72 1 F .3d 10 16 , 10 23 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

Thi s reas on in g ap pl ie s to al l of th e ev id en ce of th e Sep te m be r 19
, 20 14
, 2

co un te rfei t sa le : th e CI’s test im on y , th e au di o an d vi de o su rv ei ll an ce, an d th e vi de o of W at so n’s i nt erro ga ti on

. -6

-No va ria nc e oc cu rred he re. W at so n’ s i n d i c t ment al le ge d th at “ [o ]n or ab ou t

Aug us t 29
, 20 14
, in th e East ern Dis tri ct o f Ark an sa s, [h e] kn owi ng ly an d in te nt io na ll y di st rib ut ed 5 gr am s or m or e of m et ha m ph et am in e (act ua l)

. . . .” At tri al
, th e go ve rn m en t in tro du ced ev id en ce to pr ov e th os e fact s. W at so n a r g u e s th at th e
go ve rn m en t pr ov id ed di sc ov ery th at in di cat ed th e dr ug sa le oc cu rred at on e ad dr es s, bu t at tri al so ug ht to pr ov e th e sa le oc cu rred so m ewh ere el se

. H e mak e s no

a f f i r mati ve arg um en t as to ho w th e lo cat io n of th e dr ug sa le —o n whi ch th e in di ct m en t was si le nt —d ep riv ed hi m of fai r no ti ce of th e al le ga ti on s le ve le d ag ai ns t hi m

. Acco rd in gl y , we co nc lu de th at an y di ffer en ce be twee n th e di sc ov ery m at eri al s

an d t ria l fa ct s, t o t he ex te nt th ere was su ch a di ffer en ce, d oe s n ot warran t re ve rs al

.

3. Mot io n f

or Ju dg men t o

f Acq ui tt al

At th e cl os e of th e go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce, W at so n m ov e d f or jud gm en t of

acq ui tt al
, whi c h t h e d i s tri ct co ur t de ni ed

. On ap pe al
, he co nt en ds th is was erro r be cau se th e CI’s te st im on y , on whi ch th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e rel ie d, was no t cred ib le

. W e rev ie w th is cl ai m de no vo , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e

ve rd ic t. Uni te d St at es v. Lewis
, 55 7 F.3 d 60 1, 61 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W e m us t affi rm

so lo ng as a reas on ab le -m in de d jury co ul d fin d W at so n gu il ty b ey on d a r e a s o n a b le do ub t. Id

.

The go ve rn men t ha d to pr ov e th at W at so n “ kn owi ng ly or in te nt io na ll y

. . . di st rib ut [ed ]

. . . a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e.” 21 U

. S

. C

. § 84 1( a)(1 ). Viewi ng th e

ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic ts , we co nc lu de th e go ve rn m en t di d

so

. W at so n arran ge d a dr ug tra ns act io n wit h th e CI an d th en carr ie d it ou t. W at so n
arg ue s th at a reas on ab le jury wou ld no t f i nd th e CI to be cred ib le
, bu t po in ts us to

no th in g in th e reco rd th at wou ld es ta bl is h no reas on ab le jury co ul d tru st th e CI’s

te st im on y

. It is th e jury’ s pr ov in ce to as se ss th e cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es , an d in th is

cas e th ey be li ev ed th e CI’s ve r s i o n o f ev en ts

. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed

-7

-W at so n’s m ot io n for judg m en t of acqu it ta l, and th e jury’ s verd ic t was s up po rte d b y

su ffi ci en t ev id en ce.

B.

W at so n ne xt arg ue s th at hi s 18 0- m on th se nt en ce was pr oc ed ur al ly fla wed an d

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp re t a t io n of th e Gui de li ne s de no vo an d it s fact -fi nd in g fo r cl ear erro r. See Uni te d St at es v. Bark er, 55 6 F.3 d 68 2, 68 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W e r e v i e w t h e u lt im at e se nt en ce fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Un it ed Sta te s v . Feem st er, 5 72 F.3 d 45 5, 4 61 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) (en ba nc ).

As to pr oc ed ur al erro r, W at so n a r g u e s t ha t th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to req ui re th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov e he was co nv ic te d of se ve ral of fen se s th at were in cl ud ed in hi s cri m in al hi st or y sc or e. See Uni te d St at es v. Ch arl es , 38 9 F.3 d 79 7, 79 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (n ot in g th at th e go ve rn m en t be ars th e in it ia l bu rd en o f p ro vi ng th e fact of

co nv ic ti on ). It is t r u e t h a t t h e di st ric t co ur t di d no t pu t th e go ve rn m en t to it s
pr oo f—t he co ur t m erel y ov erru le d W at so n’s ob jecti on s. Bu t an y erro r was ha rm le ss

. W at so n h ad ni ne pr io r se nt en ces th at were as se ss ed 1 cri m in al hi st or y po in t each

. W at so n arg ue d th at th ree of th os e sh ou l d n o t c ou nt be cau se th e ch arg es were di sm is se d. Eve n if th at is tru e, W at so n’s to ta l nu m be r of 1- po in t se nt en ces wou ld be

r e d u c e d to si x. And whe th er W at so n ha d si x (as he arg ue s) or ni ne (as th e di st ric t

co ur t de te rm in ed ) 1- po in t se nt en ces , on ly fo ur of th em co un te d fo r pu rp os es of cal cu la ti ng hi s cr im in al hi st or y sco re. See USSG § 4 A1.1 (c).

W at so n al so ob

jecte d to a se nt en ce th at rece iv ed 3 cri m in al hi st or y po in ts

. Thi s

se nt en ce was ba se d on th r e e c o u n t s : th eft of pr op ert y , fle ei ng in a ve hi cl e cau si ng da ng er, an d fle ei ng on fo ot

. See id

. § 4A1 .1(a ). W at so n ob jecte d th at he was real ly

on ly co nv ic te d of th eft

. Aga in
, ev en if W at so n is rig ht
, th e se nt en ce wou ld st il l m eri t 3 cri m in al hi st or y po in ts be cau se W at so n co nc ed ed he rece iv ed m or e th an 13 m on th s

-8

-fo r th is of

fen se

. See id .; se e al so id

. § 4A1 .2(k ). In th e en d, an y pr oc ed ur al erro r at

se nt en ci ng di d n ot affe ct th e cal cu la ti on of Wats on ’s cri m in al hi st or y sco re.

As to su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss , W at so n arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by va ry in g up ward s. In ex pl ai ni ng it s se nt en ci ng de ci si on , th e di st ric t

co ur t reco un te d W at so n’s lo ng hi st or y of vi ol en t co nd uc t. The co ur t th en de ci de d on

a 18 0- m on th se nt en ce, fo cu si ng in la rg e pa rt on th e ne ed to pr ot ect t h e co m m un it y

a n d t o gi ve W at so n ti m e to ag e ou t of cri m in al it y be fo re be in g rel eas ed ba ck i n t o

so ci et y

. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y weig he d th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s, an d we fin d n o a bu se of d is cret io n.

III.

W e aff irm W at so n’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-