United States v. Kareem Watson ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4736
KAREEN WATSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.
(CR-97-445)
Submitted: June 22, 1999
Decided: August 9, 1999
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Thomas Abbenante, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, James L. Trump, Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Kareen Watson appeals from a 235-month sentence imposed fol-
lowing his jury conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent
to distribute and to distribute crack cocaine, cocaine, marijuana, and
PCP, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1999). We find
no reversible error and affirm Watson's conviction and sentence.
Watson first contends that the district court erred in denying his
motion for a judgment of acquittal. We find that viewing the evidence
in a light most favorable to the Government, Watson's conviction was
supported by sufficient evidence. See United States v. Romer, 148
F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1032 (1999).
We also reject Watson's evidentiary arguments. The evidence of
Watson's participation in a fraudulent check scheme was intrinsic to
his drug distribution activities and not subject to the limitations of
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). See United States v. Chin , 83 F.3d 83, 87-88
(4th Cir. 1996). We also find that the evidence was not overly prejudi-
cial, see Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thus, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by admitting the evidence of the fraudulent check scheme.
Even assuming the prejudice from the admission of this evidence out-
weighed its probative value, any error was harmless given the
strength of the other evidence against Watson. See United States v.
Ince, 21 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir. 1994). We further find that the dis-
trict court did not clearly err when it increased Watson's base offense
level by two levels pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) (1997). Because the evidence at trial showed that Wat-
son accepted a firearm as consideration for drugs, his possession of
the firearm was connected to the offense. See United States v. Rogers,
150 F.3d 851, 858 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 888 (1999).
Finally, the district court did not clearly err when it refused to reduce
Watson's sentence on his claim that he accepted responsibility. While
Watson correctly notes that a defendant who is convicted after a trial
is not automatically excluded from receiving a reduction under USSG
§ 3E1.1, Watson challenged his factual innocence at trial and thus did
not fit within the exception to the general rule precluding such a
2
reduction. See United States v. Dickerson, 114 F.3d 464, 470 (4th Cir.
1997).
Accordingly, we affirm Watson's conviction and sentence. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3