United States v. Watson, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17539

Watson was convicted on five marijuana-related counts after a jury trial.
His first counsel informed him of a pretrial plea offer which Watson rejected to avoid a felony; he later obtained new counsel.
Shuck, Watson’s co-defendant, pleaded guilty and cooperated, prompting the government to seek an ends-of-justice STA continuance.
The district court granted a 35-day ends-of-justice continuance, balancing the interests of speedy trial against preparation time.
Rule 404(b) notices were issued; Shuck testified about Watson’s prior marijuana conduct, and Armbruster testified in rebuttal, with Watson objecting.
Watson later claimed ineffective assistance of his second attorney for not pursuing plea discussions, and the district court denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance and prejudice from counsel	Watson argues Wallace failed to pursue and communicate plea offers, causing prejudice.	Wallace contends no deficient performance or prejudice; Watson rejected offers and knew of consequences.	No prejudice shown; ineffective-assistance claim fails
Speedy Trial Act ends-of-justice continuance	Watson contends the ends-of-justice continuance violated STA procedures.	Government and district court maintained proper STA analysis and balancing under 3161(h)(7).	Continuance upheld; no STA violation
Rule 404(b) admissibility of Shuck testimony	Shuck’s testimony about prior drug activity is improper character evidence not within 404(b).	Testimony is admissible as intrinsic or, alternatively, under Rule 404(b) to show knowledge and intent.	Admissible; supported by Huddleston factors and 404(b) purposes
Ms. Armbruster impeachment testimony	Armbruster’s testimony Admission under Rule 404(b) unfairly prejudicial or improper.	Testimony was impeachment, not substantive 404(b) evidence, and properly admitted.	Upheld as impeachment; 404(b) challenge rejected

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance framework requires deficient performance and prejudice)
Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) ( plea-offer prejudice requires showing would have changed outcome)
Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2009) (ends-of-justice findings must reflect proper weigh factors)
Williams, 511 F.3d 1049 (10th Cir. 2007) (rejects inadequate ends-of-justice findings; weighing factors required)
Gonzales, 137 F.3d 1431 (10th Cir. 1998) (criticizes sparse, unexamined ends-of-justice findings)
Occhipinti, 998 F.2d 797 (10th Cir. 1993) (sufficiency of ends-of-justice reasoning allowed when explained)
Huddleston v. United States, Huddleston, 485 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1988) (four-factor test for Rule 404(b) admissibility)
Becker, 230 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2000) (Rule 404(b) proper purposes include knowledge and intent)
Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453 (10th Cir. 1995) (prior acts admissible to show knowledge and intent in drug conspiracy)
Cherry, 433 F.3d 698 (10th Cir. 2005) (prior drug involvement to show plan, motive, or intent is admissible)