United States v. Watson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4584
LAUREN ANTHONY WATSON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson.
William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-97-262)
Submitted: May 25, 1999
Decided: September 23, 1999
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Lauren Anthony Watson, Jr., pled guilty to bank robbery, see 18
U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) (West Supp. 1999), and was sentenced to a term
of 71 months incarceration. On appeal, he challenges the six-level
sentencing enhancement he received for causing permanent or life-
threatening injury to a victim of the offense. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(3) (1997). We affirm.
Watson robbed a bank in South Carolina. During a high-speed
chase which followed, Watson fled into Georgia on Interstate 85 and
eventually crossed the median in an attempt to evade police. He drove
for several miles going south in the northbound lanes. Finally, he hit
an oncoming car head-on. The driver of the car suffered numerous
broken bones which required multiple surgeries including reconstruc-
tive surgery to her right foot to prevent amputation. She was left with
a permanent limp and an inability to do certain activities.
The presentence report recommended a six-level enhancement to
the base offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2B3.1(b)(3)(B) (1997), for serious bodily injury to the victim. How-
ever, subsection (b)(3)(B) provides a four-level enhancement for seri-
ous bodily injury, while subsection (b)(3)(C) provides a six-level
enhancement for permanent or life-threatening injury. Despite the dis-
crepancy between the recommendation and the guideline, neither
party made any objections to the presentence report and the district
court adopted the recommended six-level enhancement.
On appeal, Watson claims that the district court committed plain
error in adopting the recommended six-level enhancement. See Fed.
R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)
(failure to raise objection in district court results in plain error review
on appeal). To obtain relief, Watson must show that an error occurred,
that it was plain, that it affected his substantial rights, and that it must
be corrected to protect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
judicial proceedings. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732. He argues that the rec-
ommendation for a six-level enhancement was a clerical error, as evi-
denced by the probation officer's reference to serious bodily injury
2
and subsection (b)(3)(B), rather than to permanent or life-threatening
injury and subsection (b)(3)(C). Because the victim in fact suffered
permanent injury, the six-level enhancement was not error. Conse-
quently, Watson has failed to show plain error.
We therefore affirm the 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