United States v. Watkins
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1428
2d Cir.2012Background
- Watkins pled guilty to transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a).
- District Court imposed three two-level U.S.S.G. enhancements: for a sex act (§ 2G1.3(b)(4)(A)), for use of a computer to entice a minor (§ 2G1.3(b)(3)(A)), and for misrepresentation/undue influence (§ 2G1.3(b)(2)(A)-(B)).
- PSR calculated offense level 31, criminal history VI, base range 188–235 months, with reductions for acceptance of responsibility and plea timing.
- Watkins argued the enhancements were improper (double counting, no computer use, and misrepresentation/undue influence improper).
- District Court sentenced him to 233 months’ imprisonment, plus lifetime supervised release and restitution.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the enhancements and sentence, with Pooler concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sex-act enhancement amounts to impermissible double counting | Watkins argues § 2G1.3(b)(4)(A) double counts conduct already captured by § 2423(a). | The enhancements reflect different harms; not impermissible double counting. | Not error; enhancements reflect different facets of conduct. |
| Whether the computer-use enhancement was properly applied | Watkins contends no computer was used to facilitate travel. | Evidence shows Watkins used electronic communications to arrange and persuade. | Properly applied; the enhancement covers use of a computer to persuade/entice the minor. |
| Whether the misrepresentation/undue-influence enhancement under § 2G1.3(b)(2) applies | Watkins asserts the sentence is excessive given lack of violence and cooperation. | Not an abuse of discretion; sentence at the top of the Guidelines range is reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Conca, 635 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2011) (two-step review of reasonableness; procedural then substantive; standard of review for sentence)
- United States v. Bonilla, 618 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard; procedural/substantive components)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc; reasonableness review framework for Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2010) (distinct harms from same conduct; non-duplicative enhancements)
- United States v. Ahders, 622 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2010) (district court may adopt PSR findings to support sentencing)
- United States v. Lay, 583 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2009) (undue-influence presumption due to age disparity)
- United States v. Miller, 601 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2010) (undue-influence presumption not overcome by minor initiating conduct)
- United States v. Skys, 637 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2011) (need for explicit, reviewable factual findings; adopting PSR findings acceptable)