883 F.3d 1033
8th Cir.2018Background
- Pierre Watson pleaded guilty to conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344); a bench trial convicted him of additional counts including possession of an implement for making counterfeit securities (18 U.S.C. § 513(b)).
- Police found in Watson’s car photocopies of two Sher & Shabsin checks, perforated check stock, counterfeit payroll checks, and other items; Watson stipulated possession of the photocopied checks.
- Co-conspirators successfully passed multiple counterfeit checks drawn on Sher & Shabsin’s Enterprise Bank account; one co-defendant deposited a counterfeit check into U.S. Bank.
- Photocopied checks matched bank name, routing number, and check-number length but omitted the last digit of the account number and slightly misspelled the firm’s name; Watson used these copies in the scheme.
- Sentences: 60 months on the conspiracy count and concurrent 84-month terms on several counts, with the district court directing those sentences to run consecutive to a later-imposed sentence in another federal case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence under § 513(b) for Count Eleven | Govt: photocopies were an "implement" particularly suited for counterfeiting | Watson: photocopies cannot be a "template" or implement under § 513(b) | Photocopies qualified as an implement; evidence sufficient to convict |
| Authority to direct sentence consecutive to a not-yet-imposed federal sentence | Watson: district court exceeded authority by directing a consecutive sentence to a sentence not yet imposed | Govt: district court’s direction had no practical effect because the other judge independently imposed a consecutive sentence | Moot — other judge independently and reasonably imposed consecutive sentence; no relief available |
| Withdrawal of guilty pleas to Counts One & Two | Watson: confused about which checks supported those counts, so should be allowed to withdraw pleas | Govt: plea colloquy and record show Watson knowingly and voluntarily admitted facts supporting the pleas | Denial affirmed; plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Holloman, 981 F.2d 690 (3d Cir. 1992) (interpreting “implement” under § 513(b) to include items particularly suited for counterfeiting)
- United States v. Van Shutters, 163 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 1998) (defendant cannot escape § 513 liability by relying on fine print in forgeries)
- United States v. Iqbal, 869 F.3d 627 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence after a bench trial)
- United States v. Harris, 669 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2012) (mootness where no effectual relief is available)
- United States v. Trevino, 829 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea)
- United States v. McHenry, 849 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2017) (withdrawing a knowing and voluntary plea is disfavored)