United States v. Watson

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40153
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WAYNE ALAN WATSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CR-50-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Wayne Alan Watson appeals his convictions after a jury trial of armed
bank robbery. He argues that the district court erred in denying him a
continuance so he could retain expert witnesses to review cell phone and
computer data he received from the Government during discovery. He also

*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 22, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-40153 Document: 00515281448 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2020

No. 19-40153
2
argues that the denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion because
substitute counsel did not have adequate time to prepare a defense.
We review the district court’s denial of a continuance for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2009).
“[T]he movant must show that the denial resulted in specific and compelling
or serious prejudice.” United States v. Barnett, 197 F.3d 138, 144 (5th Cir.
1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will uphold the district court’s
decision, even if it was harsh, if it was not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Stalnaker, 571 F.3d at 439.
Watson’s assertion of prejudice is unsupported and speculative. He does
not explain how the denial of a continuance prejudiced him or affected his
counsel’s performance at trial. Thus, he has not alleged, much less
demonstrated, that he suffered “specific and compelling or serious prejudice.”
Barnett, 197 F.3d at 144 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see
Stalnaker, 571 F.3d at 439. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED. Watson’s motion to relieve counsel, appoint substitute counsel,
and restart the briefing schedule is DENIED as untimely. See United States
v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902 (5th Cir. 1998).

Case: 19-40153 Document: 00515281448 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2020