United States v. William Foster , 378 F. App'x 460 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 09-50404     Document: 00511114558          Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/18/2010
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    May 18, 2010
    No. 09-50404
    Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    WILLIAM HENRY FOSTER, III, also known as William H. Foster, also known
    as William Henry Foster; ADAM RICHARD WATSON, also known as Adam R.
    Watson,
    Defendants-Appellants
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 6:08-CR-147-1
    Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    William Henry Foster, III, and Adam Richard Watson appeal their
    respective jury convictions for conspiracy to commit murder in violation of 18
    U.S.C. § 1117. Watson argues that there was insufficient evidence to support
    the jury’s verdict because there was no evidence that the acts he committed
    effected the object of the conspiracy. Foster contends that if Watson’s actions are
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
    Case: 09-50404    Document: 00511114558 Page: 2         Date Filed: 05/18/2010
    No. 09-50404
    deemed insufficient to constitute overt acts effecting the object of the conspiracy,
    then the evidence would likewise be insufficient to support his conviction.
    Viewing the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most
    favorable to verdict, the jury might well have concluded beyond a reasonable
    doubt that Foster and Watson conspired to murder Kailey Foster. See United
    States v. Mitchell, 
    484 F.3d 762
    , 768 (5th Cir. 2007). There was ample evidence
    of a conspiratorial agreement to commit murder, of both Watson’s and Foster’s
    knowing and voluntary participation in the conspiracy, and of overt acts
    committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, namely that Watson requested
    certain items to commit the murder and that Watson drove to a specified
    location to retrieve the bag containing the requested items. See § 1117; United
    States v. Benton, 
    637 F.2d 1052
    , 1058 (5th Cir. 1981).
    Foster also appeals his sentence, contending that the district court
    committed procedural error by imposing a sentence within the pertinent
    guidelines range without giving sufficient reasons for either the selected
    sentence or for rejecting his arguments for leniency. We review this claim for
    plain error because Foster raises it for the first time on appeal. See United
    States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 
    564 F.3d 357
    , 361 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    130 S. Ct. 192
    (2009). To show plain error, Foster must show a forfeited error that
    is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United
    States, 
    129 S. Ct. 1423
    , 1429 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has
    the discretion to correct the error but only if “the error seriously affects the
    fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 
    Id. (internal quotation
    marks and brackets omitted).
    Even if the district court was not specific in rejecting Foster’s claims for
    leniency and did not explain its reasons for the sentence imposed, Foster has not
    shown that he should receive relief on this claim. See 
    Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 363-65
    . Foster has failed to show that a more extensive explanation
    2
    Case: 09-50404    Document: 00511114558 Page: 3      Date Filed: 05/18/2010
    No. 09-50404
    from the district court would have resulted in a different sentence. See 
    id. at 365.
           Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-50404

Citation Numbers: 378 F. App'x 460

Judges: Elrod, Jolly, Per Curiam, Wiener

Filed Date: 5/18/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023