Defendant's Second Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Edrica Leann Watson (M.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida · No. 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH · Doc. 52 · 2022-07-21 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
FORT MYERS DIVISION 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v.  
Case No. 2:21-cr-107-SPC-MRM 
 
EDRICA WATSON 
_________________/ 
 
SECOND SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
Edrica Watson, through counsel, in the wake of an original Sentencing 
Memorandum filed on June 8, 2022, as Doc. 44 and a July 15, 2022, Amended 
Final Presentence Report filed as Doc. 50, now hereby files this Second Sentencing 
Memorandum in further support of a sentence sufficient but not greater than 
necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing. 
Annexed hereto as “Exhibit A,” is a July 21, 2022, objection letter to the 
Amended Final Presentence Report.  As there was no initial disclosure of the 
Amended Final Presentence Report, for the reasons fully presented in “Exhibit 
A” the July 21 objection serves as the only vehicle with any ability to secure Ms. 
Watson’s due process rights and Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 32(e)(2) & 32(f) rights. 
Part (1)(A) of the original sentencing memorandum is founded on the 
statement in PSR ¶ 98 that L.P. “was influential to her,” notes at page 3 of Doc. 44 
that “L.P. contaminated her life for over three decades” but that -- at page 6 of Doc. 
44 -- “[a]though L.P. was exploitative and inconsistent, Ms. Watson was not: as 
presented [earlier], because whatever loot L.P. deemed adequate to provide 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 52     Filed 07/21/22     Page 1 of 4 PageID 257

2 
Edrica Watson went precisely for a residential down payment, none of that loot 
was expended and all of it was recovered.”  (footnote deleted). 
Item A of “Exhibit A” not only reinforces and expands this component of 
Part (1)(A), but also brings to light how inclusion of the new documents/old 
information in the Amended PSR now requires consideration of a fact also known 
by the parties at the time of the final PSR but not included in that document:  that 
$3,336 more than the total proceeds of $41,664 were re-captured by federal agents 
in between Ms. Watson’s arrest on this Court’s warrant and Ms. Watson’s 
presentation to this Court for initial appearance. 
While Part (1)(B) of the original sentencing memorandum picks up on PSR 
¶ 23 that Ms. Watson’s cooperation with authorities was immediate, the  
transcription of Ms. Watson’s interview located in Part A of “Exhibit A” 
necessitated by the discussion of new documents/old information in the Amended 
PSR not only underscores Ms. Watson’s transparency and credibility, but also 
provides information previously unacknowledged in any version of the PSR that 
the agents questioning Ms. Watson (i) already knew about L.P., (ii) referred to L.P. 
as “a salesman” who presented an opportunity to Ms. Watson and – in that capacity 
– (iii) “sold” to Ms. Watson “that benefit of receiving what I guess could be 
perceived as almost free money.”  More than ever, and precisely as Ms. Watson 
stated at pages 22-23 of her original sentencing memorandum, L.P. – the 
unindicted participant in this offense: 
 
 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 52     Filed 07/21/22     Page 2 of 4 PageID 258

3 
has been a pollutant in Ms. Watson’s life since she was nine 
years old.  
At page 16 of [the original sentencing 
memorandum], Ms. Louis wonders why Ms. Watson ‘always 
seemed unable or unwilling to stand up to him.’ While it is 
surely possible that Ms. Watson’s would have committed some 
criminal offense at some time in her life, it is surely impossible 
that Ms. Watson would not have and could not have committed 
this 
offense 
but 
for 
the 
noxious 
presence 
of 
L.P.  
Unquestionably, mental-health treatment available through the 
Office of Probation while on supervised release would benefit 
Ms. Watson.  (emphasis in original). 
 
Although untimely -- see page 2 of “Exhibit A” – the footing for the accentuation 
of the final PSR appearing in the Amended PSR engendered by the new 
documents/old information merely highlights and broadens the toxicity of L.P. in 
the life of Edrica Watson. 
Part II of Ms. Watson’s original sentencing memorandum is unaltered by the 
content of the Amended PSR as well as the information defense counsel would 
have provided to the Office of Probation to include in the Amended PSR had 
defense counsel been provided any opportunity to do so.  See Footnotes 1 & 11 of 
“Exhibit A” and their accompanying text. 
For purposes of clarity, the entirety of Ms. Watson’s original sentencing 
memorandum is respectfully incorporated herein.  
For these reasons, Ms. Watson now redoubles her position that a downward 
variance comports with all of the factors at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and respectfully 
asks this Court to consider a sentence of time-served to be followed by a term of 
supervised release. 
 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 52     Filed 07/21/22     Page 3 of 4 PageID 259

4 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
A. Fitzgerald Hall, Esq. 
Federal Defender 
Middle District of Florida 
 
/s/ James Lappan         
James Lappan, Esq. 
Florida Bar No. 0160792 
Assistant Federal Defender 
1514 Broadway, Suite 301 
Fort Myers, Florida 33901 
Telephone: 239-334-0397 
Fax: 239-334-4109 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this the 21st day of July 2022, a true copy of 
the foregoing was electronically filed and served electronically to Jesus Casas, 
Office of the United States Attorney, 2110 First Street, Fort Myers, Florida. 
 
/s/ James Lappan         
James Lappan, Esq. 
Assistant Federal Defender 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 52     Filed 07/21/22     Page 4 of 4 PageID 260

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.396888.52.0.pdf

Size

115,162 bytes

SHA-256

a856b478a387f9535eee6fba1440df7d66445c4e7a913dcf42b13d22c3206736

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.396888.52.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)