IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-20296
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL LAWRENCE WATSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CR-75-1
- - - - - - - - - -
January 6, 1999
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Lawrence Watson appeals his conviction and sentence
for being a felon in possession of a firearm. This court need
not determine whether possession of a secured transaction
treatise constitutes an intrinsic or extrinsic influence upon the
jury. See United States v. Sotelo, 97 F.3d 782, 796 (5th Cir.
1996). Regardless of the standard applied, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in finding that the possession of
the treatise was not prejudicial. The record does not support a
finding that the treatise was used to undertake independent
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 98-20296
-2-
research on the issues presented at trial or to resolve any
questions that arose during deliberations. The record reflects
that the juror who possessed the treatise had pre-existing
knowledge of secured transactions law which was not explored
during voir-dire, although his familiarity with the law should
have been evident at the time of the jury selection.
Furthermore, as Watson himself admits, the application of secured
transactions law to the facts of his case was not an issue raised
by the defense or prosecution. Given these factors, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Watson was not
prejudiced by the juror’s possession of the treatise and/or that
any presumption of prejudice was adequately rebutted. Sotelo, 97
F.3d at 796.
Watson also argues that, given the facts of his case, his
sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. We find that, given the
gravity of Watson’s criminal history, his sentence was not
grossly disproportionate to his offense. United States v.
Prudhome, 13 F.3d 147, 150 (5th Cir. 1994); see also United
States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928, 942 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.