United States v. Watts

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4655
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC RICHARD WATTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (3:06-cr-00452-MBS-12)
Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 22, 2009
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States
Attorney, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Richard Watts appeals his sentence on his
conviction of conspiracy to manufacture, possess with intent to
distribute, and distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine
and 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846
(2006). The sole issue on appeal is whether there exists an
improper sentencing discrepancy between the district court’s
oral pronouncement and the criminal judgment such that Watts’
sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for
resentencing. We find no error.
Review of the record reveals that the district court
granted Watts a three-level downward departure, based on the
Government’s motion, as well as a downward variance of twenty-
one months from the bottom of a properly calculated advisory
guideline range, and imposed a sentence of forty-two months’
imprisonment. In its oral pronouncement, the district court
imposed the forty-two month sentence, stating that the twenty-
one month variance was based on Watts’ motion alleging
extraordinary rehabilitation, and a credit for time Watts
previously had served in state custody. While the written order
of judgment does not reflect the district court’s oral
pronouncement regarding the state sentence credit, the sentence
reflected on the judgment order reflects the same orally-
2
pronounced sentence of forty-two months’ imprisonment.
Moreover, the accompanying Statement of Reasons, issued in
conjunction with the criminal judgment, clearly states that the
twenty-one month variance was based upon previous time Watts
served in state custody.
Accordingly, we find no error in the judgment order or
any contradiction between the oral pronouncement and the
criminal judgment regarding the state sentence such that remand
is necessary. We affirm Watts’ sentence. We dispense 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