United States v. Lamarlvin Watts, 896 F.3d 1245

On July 14, 2015, an armed robber wearing a yellow hat, camouflage bandana, blue latex gloves, black-and-white athletic shoes, and with distinctive tattoos (a small cross on the forehead and a neck tattoo showing a “U”/"TRU") robbed a Wells Fargo in Savannah with a .22-caliber handgun and took about $2,400.
Police arrested Lamarlvin Watts the next day after a tip; searches of his car/residence yielded .22-caliber rounds, similar sneakers, a blue latex glove, a different-colored bandana, a .38 revolver, .38 rounds, and $319 cash.
Phone records/texts showed Watts sought someone to alter his tattoos immediately after media reports and the next day contacted a tattoo artist who altered his neck and forehead tattoos; the artist testified to these alterations at trial.
At trial Watts proceeded pro se with his former counsel in an advisory role; he initially told the court he wanted to testify, then—after off-the-record consultations with advisory counsel—stated he would not, made later requests to testify, but did not pursue reopening his case after the court found he had rested knowingly and voluntarily.
A jury convicted Watts of armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d)) and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)); at sentencing the court applied a 2-level U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement for Watts’s tattoo alterations and sentenced him to 148 months (including mandatory consecutive 84 months under § 924(c)).

Issue	Watts's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for armed robbery and brandishing firearm	Eyewitnesses did not positively ID him; no conclusive DNA/fingerprints; robbery hat/bandana not found on him; cash not linked; gun caliber differed; no incriminating phone/location data	Circumstantial evidence (matching appearance/tattoos, shoes, blue glove, .22 ammunition, tattoo-alteration efforts) permitted reasonable inference of guilt	Affirmed — evidence sufficient when viewed in government’s favor
Right to testify (pro se)	Court failed to ensure he made a knowing, intelligent decision to waive testimony; court should have allowed him to testify when he asked	Watts had advisory counsel, made off-the-record consultations, and voluntarily decided not to testify; no record of a misunderstanding requiring court intervention	Affirmed — no denial of right; decision to waive was knowing and voluntary
Sentencing enhancement for obstruction (U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1)	Tattoo alteration was routine appearance change; enhancement would overreach absent clearer Guideline examples; invoke rule of lenity	Tattoos were material identifying evidence; permanent alteration destroyed/ concealed material evidence and hindered investigation	Affirmed — § 3C1.1 properly applied because altering tattoos destroyed material evidence and impeded investigation

United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review)
United States v. Ly, 646 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2011) (pro se defendant’s right to testify and when court must intervene)
United States v. Byrd, 403 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2005) (timing for exercising right to testify and when reopening may be appropriate)
United States v. Alpert, 28 F.3d 1104 (11th Cir. 1994) (requirements for articulating basis for § 3C1.1 enhancement)
United States v. Bliss, 430 F.3d 640 (2d Cir. 2005) (discussing when appearance changes do not support obstruction enhancement)
United States v. Bond, 933 F.2d 152 (2d Cir. 1991) (appearance changes insufficient for enhancement absent intent to thwart investigation)
Cosby v. Jones, 682 F.2d 1373 (11th Cir. 1982) (standard on weighing evidence in sufficiency challenges)
United States v. Mendez, 528 F.3d 811 (11th Cir. 2008) (circumstantial-evidence convictions require reasonable inferences)
United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 2010) (rule of lenity and interpretation of Guidelines commentary)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (authority of Guidelines commentary)