United States v. Pierre Watson
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21818
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Pierre Watson, serving federal time in a halfway house, escaped and was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a).
- At sentencing for the escape, the district court imposed 18 months (mid-Guidelines) and expressly ordered the sentence to run consecutively to any sentence that might be imposed in a separate pending federal fraud/identity-theft case.
- Watson did not object in district court; he appealed arguing the court lacked authority to impose a consecutive sentence to a not-yet-imposed federal sentence.
- Because Watson forfeited the issue by not objecting, relief is available only under plain-error review (Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b)).
- The Eighth Circuit surveyed Supreme Court dictum in Setser and several circuits (1st, 4th, 9th, 5th) that reached conflicting or non-obvious conclusions about anticipatory consecutive federal sentences.
- The court concluded the law is not "clear or obvious" that a district court lacks authority here, so any error was not plain; the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a federal district court may order a sentence to run consecutively to an anticipated (not-yet-imposed) federal sentence | Watson: § 3584(a) should be read to give the later-sentencing court the concurrent-or-consecutive choice, so the first court lacks authority to impose an anticipatory consecutive federal sentence | Government: Setser left the question open; other readings of § 3584(a) allow the first court discretion to order consecutive sentences even if the other federal sentence is not yet imposed | The court declined to find plain error: Setser and circuit decisions leave the issue unsettled, so any error was not "clear or obvious," and the sentence was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012) (Supreme Court held § 3584(a) does not speak to anticipated sentences and left open whether federal anticipatory consecutive sentences are permissible)
- United States v. Poitra, 648 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2011) (plain-error standard discussion)
- United States v. Almonte-Reyes, 814 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2016) (adopted Setser footnote view allowing anticipatory federal consecutive sentences after analysis)
- United States v. Obey, 790 F.3d 545 (4th Cir. 2015) (analyzed issue, concluded anticipatory federal consecutive sentences impermissible based on circuit precedent but denied relief on plain-error review)
- United States v. Montes-Ruiz, 745 F.3d 1286 (9th Cir. 2014) (held anticipatory federal consecutive sentences impermissible, relying on prior circuit precedent)
- United States v. Mayotte, 249 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2001) (earlier Eighth Circuit decision permitting consecutive sentence to anticipated state sentence; not dispositive here)
- United States v. Quintana-Gomez, 521 F.3d 495 (5th Cir. 2008) (allowed anticipatory state-consecutive sentences but used reasoning differing from Setser)