Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03298/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03298-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Monroe Curtis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L b D 

United St.ates Coμrt (!f Appeal, TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth C1rcu1t 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MONROE CURTIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 2 7 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No . 92-3298 

(D.C. No. 90-30008-01) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App . P. 

34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Monroe Curtis pleaded guilty to a charge of escaping from the Federal Prison Camp (FCP) in Leavenworth, Kansas, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 75l(a). The only issue in this direct 

criminal appeal is whether defendant was entitled to a two-level 

reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility. We 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 36.3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-3298 Document: 010110220145 Date Filed: 04/27/1993 Page: 1 
(c) A defendant who enters a guilty plea is not 

entitled to a sentencing reduction under this 

section as a matter of right. 

Application Notes: 

1. In detennining whether a defendant qualifies for 

this provision, appropriate considerations include, 

but are not limited to, the following: 

(a) voluntary tennination or withdrawal from 

criminal conduct or associations; 

(d) voluntary surrender to authorities promptly 

after commission of the offense; 

(g) the timeliness of the defendant's conduct in 

manifesting the acceptance of responsibility. 

Within this framework, defendant had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to a reduction or 

credit in his offense level . United States v. Rutter, 897 F.2d 

1558, 1560 (10th Cir. ), cert . denied, 498 U.S. 829 (1990). 

Defendant's conduct during his escape unequivocally demonstrated his intent to avoid apprehension as long as possible . He 

traveled throughout the country before his arrest in Iowa. 

Defendant's guilty plea, cooperation and remorse at the time the 

PSR was prepared do not overcome his failure to promptly surrender 

after his escape, his activities that led to another criminal indictment, and his association with other criminals while he was at 

large. The record contains sufficient factual basis for refusing 

a reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3 -

Appellate Case: 92-3298 Document: 010110220145 Date Filed: 04/27/1993 Page: 2 
reverse only if the district court's finding is clearly erroneous. 

United States v. Ross, 920 F.2d 1530, 1537 (10th Cir. 1990 ) . 

Defendant escaped from the FPC on or about September 22, 

1990. He remained at large for approximately eighteen months. 

While a fugitive, defendant assumed a new identity, resided with 

a federal parolee he had met in prison, and was indicted in Iowa 

on drug-related charges. Defendant was ultimately apprehended and 

entered a guilty plea two-and-a-half months after his capture . 

Defendant cooperated with the presentence investigation and expressed remorse when interviewed in connection with preparation of 

the presentence report (PSR). The plea agreement included the 

government's promise not to oppose defendant's request for a twolevel reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility 

and to recommend the minimum sentence . The court rejected the 

reduction and sentenced defendant to the maximum period of incarceration, thirty-seven months, under the guidelines. 

We have read the record and briefs, and cannot find fault 

with the district court's analysis in denying defendant a twolevel reduction in his offense level. The Guideline provisions 

and Application Notes provide as follows: 

§ 3El . 1. Acceptance of Responsibility 

(a ) If the defendant clearly demonstrates a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal 

responsibility for his criminal conduct, re -

duce the offense level by 2 l evels. 

(b ) A defendant may be given consideration under 

this section without regard to whether his 

conviction is based upon a guilty plea or a 

finding of guilt by the court or jury or the 

practical certainty of conviction at trial. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3298 Document: 010110220145 Date Filed: 04/27/1993 Page: 3 
-4-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3298 Document: 010110220145 Date Filed: 04/27/1993 Page: 4