United States v. Michael Watson

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Bobby E. Shepherd, Morris S. Arnold and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED) [4488233] [16-1897]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1897
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael L. Watson
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin
____________
Submitted: January 6, 2017
Filed: January 10, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Watson directly appeals from the sentence the district court1 imposed
after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm charges, under a plea agreement that
1

The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 16-1897

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/10/2017 Entry ID: 4488233

contained an appeal waiver, but reserved his right to challenge the imposition of a
career-offender enhancement. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising arguments related to his
conviction and sentence, and challenging the career-offender enhancement. Watson
has filed a pro se brief and moved for appointment of new counsel. In his pro se
brief, Watson argues that the district court erred in applying the career-offender
enhancement.
We conclude that Watson waived his challenge to the career-offender
enhancement by raising and then withdrawing an objection to it in the district court
proceedings. See United States v. Stoney End of Horn, 829 F.3d 681, 687-88 (8th
Cir. 2016) (where defendant withdrew objection to PSR enhancement in district court,
claim of error on appeal was waived). We further conclude that the appeal waiver is
enforceable as to counsel’s other arguments. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d
702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal
waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). Furthermore, we have independently
reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no
non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm as to the career-offender
enhancement and otherwise enforce the appeal waiver, we grant counsel’s motion,
and we deny Watson’s motion.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1897

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/10/2017 Entry ID: 4488233