United States v. David Watson ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-10894       Document: 00515508231         Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/29/2020
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    No. 19-10894
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    Summary Calendar                   July 29, 2020
    Lyle W. Cayce
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                 Clerk
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    DAVID DEWAYNE WATSON,
    Defendant - Appellant
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:19-CR-81-1
    Before BARKSDALE, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    David Dewayne Watson challenges the concurrent sentences of, inter
    alia, 115-months’ imprisonment imposed following his pleading guilty to: one
    count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1343; and one count of
    making a fraudulent transaction with an access device, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
    §§ 2 and 1029(a)(5). He contends the presentence investigation report (PSR)
    provided insufficient evidence to support the court’s application of a four-level
    * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.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: 19-10894     Document: 00515508231      Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/29/2020
    No. 19-10894
    enhancement, pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 3B1.1(a) (providing four-
    level enhancement “[i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal
    activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive”),
    because, inter alia: he was not a leader of the criminal activity; he never “used”
    “five people . . . at any one time”; and the criminal activity was not “otherwise
    extensive”.
    Although post-Booker the Guidelines are advisory only, the district court
    must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the
    Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 46, 51 (2007).
    If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to an ultimate
    sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-
    discretion standard.
    Id. at 51;
    United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 
    564 F.3d 750
    , 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in district
    court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings,
    only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 
    517 F.3d 751
    ,
    764 (5th Cir. 2008).
    Along that line, “[a] district court’s determination that a defendant is a
    § 3B1.1 leader or organizer is a factual finding . . . review[ed] for clear error”.
    United States v. Ronning, 
    47 F.3d 710
    , 711 (5th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
    “Furthermore, in determining whether [a Guidelines] enhancement applies, a
    district court is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the facts, and
    these inferences are fact-findings reviewed for clear error as well.” United
    States v. Caldwell, 
    448 F.3d 287
    , 290 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Our
    court upholds such factual findings on clear-error review so long as they are
    “plausible in [the] light of the record read as a whole”. 
    Ronning, 47 F.3d at 711
    (citation omitted).
    2
    Case: 19-10894    Document: 00515508231       Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/29/2020
    No. 19-10894
    Watson fails to show clear error for the following reasons. (Therefore,
    the Government’s alternative harmless-error contention need not be
    addressed.)
    Watson contends the PSR does not establish he exercised control over
    others. The PSR states, however, that Watson directed another participant to
    manufacture a counterfeit driver’s license and to create a website and email
    addresses to impersonate a construction company.             Further, the PSR
    establishes Watson directed others to purchase and obtain items using
    counterfeit credit cards and stolen credit-card numbers. The court, therefore,
    did not clearly err in finding Watson was the organizer or leader “of one or
    more other participants” in the criminal activity for purposes of applying the
    enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2; see also United States v. Dickerson,
    
    909 F.3d 118
    , 127 (5th Cir. 2018) (stating “[t]o trigger the enhancement, the
    defendant need only have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor
    of one or more other participants”) (internal quotation marks and citation
    omitted), cert. denied, 
    139 S. Ct. 2685
    (2019).
    Additionally, Watson’s contention the number of participants involved
    with his criminal activity was insufficient to support the enhancement is
    unavailing because, inter alia, the PSR did not rely on the “five or more
    participants” provision of Guideline § 3B1.1(a). Instead, it determined the role
    enhancement was warranted because Watson was the “organizer or leader” of
    an “otherwise extensive” criminal activity. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a).
    In that regard, “a criminal activity is ‘otherwise extensive’ if it involved
    five or more people who ‘contributed to the success of the scheme’”. United
    States v. Ho, 
    311 F.3d 589
    , 611 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Davis,
    
    226 F.3d 346
    , 360 (5th Cir. 2000)).         Further, “[i]n assessing whether an
    organization is ‘otherwise extensive,’ all persons involved during the course of
    3
    Case: 19-10894    Document: 00515508231     Page: 4   Date Filed: 07/29/2020
    No. 19-10894
    the entire offense are to be considered. Thus, a fraud that involved only three
    participants but used the unknowing services of many outsiders could be
    considered extensive”. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.3. Additionally, in determining
    whether to apply the enhancement, a court should consider, inter alia: “the
    exercise of decision making authority, . . . the recruitment of accomplices, the
    claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of
    participation in planning . . . the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal
    activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others”.
    U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4.
    In this instance, the record reflects Watson recruited eight individuals
    to participate in the criminal activity. It also shows Watson made use of the
    unknowing services of various third-party trucking companies. Finally, the
    court properly considered factors identified by the above-quoted commentary
    application note 4 to Guideline § 3B1.1.
    AFFIRMED.
    4