Watts Sample Clauses

Watts. D., Little, J & Ilberry, B. (2018). ‘I am pleased to shop somewhere that is fighting the
Watts. B.M.; Yamaki, G. L.; Jeffery, L. E. and Elias, L. G. (1989): Sensory Methods for Food Evaluation, 1st Ed., The International Development Research Center Pub., Ottawa, Canada.
Watts. D., Dodds, P.S., and Newman, M.E.J.: Identity and Search in Social Net- works. Science 296 (2002) 1302-1305
Watts. HAS PREVENTED THE LOWER COURTS FROM RECOGNIZING THE OBVIOUS IMPORT OF APPRENDIDespite the clear import of the Apprendi line of cases on sentences based on acquitted charges, federal courts continue to sentence criminal defendants on acquitted charges by purporting to follow a per curiam Fifth Amendment double jeopardy case, United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997). But Watts merely held that a sentencing court did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause by considering acquitted offenses. Id. No Sixth Amendment challenge was raised or considered in Watts. See id.; see also Booker, 543‌U.S. at 240. Indeed, this Court later highlighted that Watts faced no “contention that the sentencing enhancement had exceeded the sentence authorized by the jury verdict in violation of the Sixth Amendment.” Booker, 543 U.S. at 240. Instead, Watts “presented a very narrow question regarding the interaction of the Guidelines with the Double Jeopardy Clause and did not even have the benefit of full briefing or oral argument. It is unsurprising that we failed to consider fully the issues presented to us ” Id. at 240 n.4.Yet, for some reason, lower federal courts still read Watts to foreclose Sixth Amendment challenges. See United States v. White, 551 F.3d 381, 384-86 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc); United States v. Mercado, 474 F.3d 654, 656-59 (9th Cir. 2007)(collecting cases from every circuit, except Sixth); United States v. Gobbi, 471 F.3d 302, 314 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Farias, 469 F.3d 393, 399-400 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Faust, 456 F.3d 1342, 1348 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Dorcely,‌‌‌454 F.3d 366, 371 (D.C. Cir. 2006); United States v.High Elk, 442 F.3d 622, 626 (8th Cir. 2006); UnitedStates v. Vaughn, 430 F.3d 518, 525-27 (2d Cir.2005); United States v. Price, 418 F.3d 771, 787-88 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Ashworth, 139 F. App’x 525, 527 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).‌Watts, even if read in a limited fashion as deciding purely a Fifth Amendment double jeopardy issue, is of questionable lineage. The decision appears to reflect now-outdated notions of judge and jury fact-finding and to diminish the importance of a jury’s acquittal. Thus, even on its own terms, Watts’ reasoning appears dubious. But the lower courts have extended Watts to the Sixth Amendment context and, in doing so, brought that decision into square conflict with this Court’s Apprendi line of cases. See Barry L. Johnson, The Puzzling Persistence of Acquitt...
Watts. 2. Swing Check Valves: a. General:
Watts. D.J., Strogatz, S.H.: Collective dynamics of small-world networks. Nature 393, 440–442 (1998)
Watts. N.F., Activist in Office, Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2010, p.72
Watts. M., and N. Kasabov, “Genetic algorithms for the design of fuzzy neural networks”, in Proc. of ICONIP'98, Kitakyushu, Oct. 1998, IOS Press, 793-796 (1998)
Watts i. <Insert manufacturer's name>.