JUDGMENT as to Stephawn Malik Watson (8), Count(s) 1, 2-27, 28, 29-30, 38, DISMISSED; Count(s) 1s, 28s, 42s, IMPRISONMENT for a term of 29 months as to Count ls; 29 months as to Count 28s to run concurrent to Count ls; 24 months as to Count 42s to run consecutive to Counts ls and 28s for a total term of 53 months with credit for time served in federal custody since 1/12/2022; SUPERVISED RELEASE for a total term of 3 years as to Counts 1s, 28s, 42s to run concurrent to the 3 years imposed in

District Judge Brendan Abell Hurson entered judgment on July 19, 2024, in the case involving Stephawn Malik Watson. The court dismissed multiple counts against Watson, specifically Counts 1, 2 through 27, 28, 29, 30, and 38. Watson received a combined prison sentence totaling 53 months.

This includes 29 months on Count 1s, 29 months on Count 28s to run concurrently with Count 1s, and 24 months on Count 42s to run consecutively to the other counts. The sentence accounts for time Watson has already served in federal custody since January 12, 2022.

In addition to imprisonment, the court imposed a supervised release term of three years running concurrently with a separate three-year supervised release term from USDC Case BAH 22-084. The judgment also includes a $300 assessment and restitution ordered at $2,094,319. An order of forfeiture was attached to the judgment, signaling the seizure of assets related to the case.

The dismissal of most counts narrows the scope of Watson’s liability, focusing punishment on the specific counts that survived. The concurrent and consecutive sentencing structure extends Watson’s custody period while recognizing overlap between some charges. The restitution amount indicates significant financial harm attributed to Watson’s conduct.

This ruling follows federal custody beginning in early 2022 and resolves the charges against Watson with a clear sentence and financial penalties. The case remains active, but this judgment marks a critical procedural milestone. The attached order of forfeiture suggests ongoing asset recovery efforts tied to the underlying criminal conduct.

The docket number and court remain unspecified in public filings. The case’s next procedural steps will likely involve enforcement of the judgment, including restitution collection and supervised release monitoring. Any appeals or post-judgment motions could further affect the timeline.