Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-04376/USCOURTS-ca3-14-04376-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jaime Fournier
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 14-4376

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JAIME FOURNIER

a/k/a Bori

JAIME FOURNIER,

Appellant

______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(District Court No. 2-10-cr-00676-009)

District Judge: Hon. Mitchell S. Goldberg

______________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

March 3, 2016

______________

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SMITH, and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion filed: April 25, 2016)

_______________________

OPINION*

_______________________

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 

Case: 14-4376 Document: 003112272115 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2016
2

McKEE, Chief Judge

Jaime Fournier appeals the District Court’s judgment of sentence denying a 

reduction of the offense level for acceptance of responsibility. For the reasons that 

follow, we will affirm.

I.

Because we write for the parties who are already familiar with the facts and 

procedural history, we set forth only the background necessary to our conclusion.

On July 6, 2011, Fournier was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania, charging him with one count of conspiracy to distribute 100 grams or more 

of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and one count of possession of 100 grams or 

more of heroin with intent to distribute, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a) and § (b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On April 9, 2014, Fournier entered a plea of 

nolo contendere to these charges. The dispute here arises from the fact that Fournier 

claimed he did not recall committing the crimes charged, but acknowledged that the 

government did not fabricate the evidence against him.

At the sentencing hearing, the District Court overruled Fournier’s objection to the

denial of credit for acceptance of responsibility based on two factors. First, the District 

Court considered a number of psychological evaluations conducted by experts retained 

by the court, the government, and Fournier, which found that his ability to recall the 

charged conduct was not impaired, nor did Fournier exhibit any organic brain 

Case: 14-4376 Document: 003112272115 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2016
3

dysfunction. Second, the District Court noted that while it appeared that Fournier did 

exhibit, to a certain extent, remorse and acceptance of responsibility, neither expression 

was overwhelming. The District Court ultimately imposed a sentence of seventy-eight

months’ imprisonment to be followed by four years of supervised release, and a special 

assessment of $200. Fournier appeals.

II.

The District Court’s denial of the two-level reduction is entitled to “great 

deference” because the “sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant’s 

acceptance of responsibility.”1 We review factual findings “underlying the denial of a 

Sentencing Guidelines reduction for acceptance of responsibility for clear error, and 

reverse only if we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed.”2

Section 3E1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two-level decrease in 

the offense level when a “defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for 

his offense.”3 Fournier has the burden of establishing that he is entitled to this two-level 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility by the preponderance of the evidence.4 We 

also recognize that a plea of nolo contendere is not an admission of guilt,5and although 

 

1 United States v. King, 604 F.3d 125, 141 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting U.S. SENTENCING 

GUIDELINES MANUAL § 3E1.1 cmt. 5 (U.S. SENTENCING COMM’N 2004)).

2 United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185, 199 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. 

Boone, 279 F.3d 163, 193 (3d Cir. 2002)); United States v. Felton, 55 F.3d 861, 864 (3d 

Cir. 1995).

3 U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 3E1.1(a) (U.S. SENTENCING COMM’N 2004).

4 Boone, 279 F.3d at 193.

5 See United States v. Adedoyin, 369 F.3d 337, 344 (3d Cir. 2004).

Case: 14-4376 Document: 003112272115 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/25/2016
4

such a plea does not preclude a District Court from granting a reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility,6the burden remains on the defendant to demonstrate acceptance of 

responsibility and express remorse.7 

Fournier contends that the District Court erred when it found that he was not 

entitled to a sentencing reduction for accepting responsibility even though he entered a 

nolo contendere plea in a timely fashion and expressed remorse. Fournier cites United 

States v. Harris to support his claim that a nolo contendere plea was appropriate given his 

mental capacity at the time of the charged conduct.8 According to Fournier, his plea, in 

conjunction with statements made to the District Court, qualified him for a sentence 

reduction. Fournier’s reliance on Harris is misplaced, and a more thorough review of the 

record indicates that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that Fournier had not 

expressed sufficient remorse for his actions to justify a reduction in his sentence.

Fournier claims that he was unable to recall the incidents surrounding the charge 

because of a history of high dosage drug abuse and head trauma. We have acknowledged 

that a defendant who truly could not remember the events surrounding a charged crime 

should not be required to perjure himself in order to have a court conclude that s/he has 

expressed remorse and accepted responsibility.

9

 However, that does not appear to be the 

circumstance here. A number of psychological evaluations conducted by experts retained 

by the court, the government, and the defendant himself, found that Fournier’s ability to 

 

6 United States v. Harris, 751 F.3d 123, 127 (3d Cir. 2014).

7 Boone, 279 F.3d at 193.

8 Harris, 751 F.3d at 127.

9

Id.

Case: 14-4376 Document: 003112272115 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/25/2016
5

recall the charged conduct was not impaired. Fournier’s claim of a faulty memory is 

therefore dubious at best.

Given the absence of record support for his claim of compromised memory, 

Fournier simply did not convince the District Court of his sincerity. Although Fournier 

appeared to accept responsibility and apologized for his conduct, the District Court was 

simply unpersuaded of his sincerity. Indeed, when Fournier was asked what charge he 

was expressing remorse for, he testified: “distributing marijuana.” Given this record, we 

cannot conclude that the District Court committed plain error in remaining skeptical of 

Fournier’s sincerity. In reaching this conclusion, however, we reiterate that a defendant 

who enters a plea of nolo contendere can nevertheless demonstrate sufficient remorse to 

fully accept responsibility for his/her criminal conduct.10 We simply hold that the 

District Court did not commit plain error in concluding that this is not such a case. 

III.

For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the District Court did not err in 

refusing to reduce Fournier’s guidelines offense level based on his acceptance of 

responsibility, and will therefore affirm.

 

10 Id.

Case: 14-4376 Document: 003112272115 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/25/2016