Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06243/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06243-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rudolph Sherman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FI LED 

United States Cour:t of Appet.ls 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN ·11990 

&OBERT L HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 89-6243 

RUDOLPH SHERMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) (D.C. No. CR-89-29-A) 

) (W.Dist. of Okla.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before McKAY~ BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

Rudolph Sherman (Sherman) was charged March 28, 1989, by 

information with having, on or about January 6, 1989, knowingly, 

intentionally and unlawfully distributed some fourteen (14) grams 

of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of 21 

u.s.c. S 84l(a)(l) and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 

u.s.c. S 2. He entered into a Plea Agreement. Following entry of 

his guilty plea, Sherman was sentenced to 40 months of 

imprisonment under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. SS 

3551, et seq. Sherman appeals from the district court's denial of 

a two-point reduction in his sentence for acceptance of 

responsibility pursuant to Section 3El.l of the 

Guidelines. 

Sentencing 

The district court denied Sherman's application for reduction 

downward within the guideline range. On appeal, Sherman argues 

Appellate Case: 89-6243 Document: 010110036143 Date Filed: 06/04/1990 Page: 1 
that the record demonstrates that (1) the court impermissibly 

- placed the burden of proof on him to prove his acceptance of 

responsibility an~ (2) in any event, the evidence was insufficient 

to establish that he had not accepted responsibility. 

§ 3El.l prpvides: 

Acceptance of Responsibility 

(a) If the defendant clearly demonstrates a 

and affirmative acceptance of 

responsibility for the offense of 

reduce the offense level by 2 levels. 

recognition 

personal 

conviction, 

(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. 

( C) A defendant who enters a guilty plea is not 

entitled to a sentencing reduction under this 

section as a matter of right. 

The background commentary under the United States Sentencing 

Commission's Guideline Manual to§ 3El.l refers to the recognition 

of ''legitimate societal interests" in the application of this 

section if a defendant "clearly demonstrates a recognition and 

affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for the offense" 

by taking one or more of the actions, or their equivalent, 

hereinafter listed. 

In United States v. Kirk, 894 F.2d 1162 (10th Cir. 1990), we 

held that under the Sentencing Guidelines the government shall 

bear the burden of proof for sentence increases and the defendant 

shall bear the burden of proof for sentence decreases. We also 

held that evidence which does not preponderate, or is in equipoise 

simply fails to meet the required burden of proof. In United 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6243 Document: 010110036143 Date Filed: 06/04/1990 Page: 2 
States v. Rogers, . F.2d (No. 88-2926, filed 3/26/90, 10th 

Cir. 1990), we reiterated that the burden of proof for 

establishing entitlement to a reduction of the offense level for 

acceptance of responsibility is on the defendant and we there 

recognized that qualification for the reduction may arise from a 

variety of factors set forth in the application notes relating to 

§ 3El . l, to-wit: 

1 . In determining whether a defendant qualifies for 

this provision, appropriate considerations include, but 

are not limited to, the following: 

(a) voluntary termination or withdrawal from criminal 

conduct or associations; 

(b) voluntary payment of 

adjudication of guilt; 

restitution prior to 

(c) voluntary and truthful admission to authorities of 

involvement in the offense and related conduct; 

(d) voluntary s~rr~nder to authorities promptly after 

commission of the offense; 

(e) voluntary assistance to authorities in the recovery 

of the fruits and instrumentalities of the offense; 

(f) voluntary resignation from the office or position 

held during the commission of the offense; and 

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

manifesting the acceptance of responsibility. 

Our standard of review under§ 3El.l is delineated under the 

United States Sentencing Commission's Guidelines Manual, § 3El.l, 

comment (N. 5): 

The sentencing judge is in a unique position to 

evaluate a defendant's acceptance of responsiblity. For 

this reason, the determination of the sentencing judge 

is entitled to great deference on review and should not 

be disturbed unless it is without foundation. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6243 Document: 010110036143 Date Filed: 06/04/1990 Page: 3 
·- In United States v. Rogers, supra, at page 17, we quoted and 

relied on United States v. Smitherman, 889 F.2d 189, 192 (8th Cir. 

19~9) in adopting this standard: 

A guilty plea does not guarantee a reduction as a matter 

of right. United States v. Young, 875 F.2d 1357, 1360 

(8th Cir. 1989) (citing Sentencing Guidelines § 

3El.l(c)). 'The sentencing judge is in a unique position 

to evaluate a defendant's acceptance of responsibility. 

For this reason, the determination of the sentencing 

judge is entitled to great deference on review and 

should not be disturbed unless it is without 

foundation.' United States v. Johnson, 879 F.2d 331, 

335 (8th Cir. 1989) (quoting Sentencing Guidelines§ 

3El.l, application note 5). 

In Rogers, supra, we further observed that a district court's 

denial of a downward adjustment under § 3El.l "[d]oes not 

constitute a penalty or an enhancement of sentence." (Slip 

Opinion, page 17). 

In this case, Sherman raised the issue of his entitlement to 

the downward adjustment based on his acceptance of responsibility 

via his objection to matters contained in the Presentence Report. 

Accordingly, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing 

on June 27, 1989, relative to the issue. At the conclusion 

thereof, the court concurred in the evaluations of the United 

States Probation Officer and denied Sherman credit for acceptance 

of responsibility. The district court found/concluded: 

Now, with respect. to the important issue of 

acceptance of responsibility. That provision in the 

Sentencing Guidelines is not viewed by me, at least, as 

the entitlement of somebody who pleads guilty. 

Conversely, there's no forfeiture of entitlement by 

somebody who pleads not guilty. It's largely a 

subjective matter and it is primarily of interest 

insofar as acceptance of responsibility predicts the 

success of incarceration and subsequent supervised 

release. People who accept responsibility probably do 

more with themselves in order to rehabilitate 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6243 Document: 010110036143 Date Filed: 06/04/1990 Page: 4 
.. themselves. And Mr. Richardson, I think, was a little 

bit taken aback at the nature of the testimony here 

because Mr. Sherman does have an explanation or an 

excuse for everything, and I hope in the course of 

subsequent introspection that he can come to terms with 

himself better than he has so far. I'm not going to 

grant him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility 

because I think in the genuine subjective sense that has 

not been shown. I know of no reason why the report is 

not accurate in Miss Henley's personal observations 

about what Mr. Sherman told her, and what he told her is 

inconsistent with true acceptance of responsibility. 

The plea of guilty, I think, is quite understandable in 

a case in which you have a red-handed bust, such as in 

this case. What is there to contest? I, in this 

respect, of course, also have in mind Mr. Richardson's 

memorandum to me concerning Mr. Sherman's cooperation. 

I think, in summary, it's a memorandum that tells me 

that he was perfectly cooperative but it just didn't go 

anywhere because nobody would have anything to do with 

him once his arrest was known. So the level 20 will 

stand, and I do not find any acceptance of 

responsibility in the pertinent sense here. 

(R., Vol. III, pp. 42-43). 

'rhe district court's reference that "It's largely a 

subjective matter" was clearly a reference to defendant Sherman's 

state of mind. The court concluded that Sherman's state of mind 

did not reflect an acceptance of responsiblity because he had an 

"explanation or excuse for everything." We must accept these 

findings of fact unless we hold that they are clearly erroneous. 

18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). 

The district court's decision not to grant Sherman the 

acceptance of responsiblity downward adjustment was based upon the 

Presentence Report prepared by Ms. Melody Henley, United States 

Probation Officer, and the testimony of Sherman and Henley given 

at the June 27, 1989, hearing. Our review of the record 

demonstrates that the district court did not err in its 

determination that Sherman had not truly accepted responsibility, 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-6243 Document: 010110036143 Date Filed: 06/04/1990 Page: 5 
• 

•. 

notwithstanding his profession of regret. The district court's 

determination was certainly not clearly erroneous. 

The Probation Officer (Ms. Henley) reported in the 

Presentence Report that Sherman did not accept 

responsiblity for his criminal conduct: 

6. The defendant does not accept personal 

responsiblity for his criminal conduct. The 

defendant stated to this writer that he was 'set 

up' by the confidential informant and would not 

have otherwise become involved in the drug 

transactions. He also stated to this writer that 

he did not sell cocaine to anyone but the 

undercover agent. However, during a transaction 

with a undercover agent, the defendant stated that 

he had been dealing in cocaine for ten years and 

that he made his living by selling cocaine. Also, 

the defendant made . arrangements for other drug 

transactions in the presence of the undercover 

agent. In addition, the defendant has continued 

his criminal conduct in the usage of cocaine as 

evidenced in two positive urinalysis tests for 

cocaine. 

(R., Vol. II, p. 3). 

personal 

Ms. Henley was not questioned by counsel for appellant 

Sherman on cross-examination during the evidentiary hearing about 

any of the above matters. 

During the evidentiary hearing, Sherman explained that 

his remark about being "set up" was the result of the mindaltering drugs he had been using. He explained that his 

"current troubles" were caused by his addiction and that 

"[i]t was the drugs that helped me do it ••• it's a mindaltering drug which is once ... a disease, once you have 

made contact with it." (R., Vol. III, p. 10). Counsel for 

Sherman argued that there was no inconsistency between 

Sherman's acceptance of responsibility (the commission of the 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-6243 Document: 010110036143 Date Filed: 06/04/1990 Page: 6 
, 

.. crime) and his explanation that he got "in this jam" because 

of his cocaine addiction. Id. at 40. 

The district court judge observed that when he accepted 

Sherman's plea of guilty, he determined that Sherman was 

mentally competent when he committed the offense in question, 

and that nothing had been presented to lead him to conclude 

that Sherman lacked "[c]ognitive ability or that he lacked a 

degree of willpower so that he could not have conformed his 

conduct to the law at that time." Id. at 40, 41. The 

district court found that Sherman made the remarks attributed 

to him in the Presentence Report and that those remarks are 

inconsistent with true acceptance of responsiblity. Id. at 

42, 43. We agree with the district court's findings/ 

conclusions. They cannot be disturbed unless they are 

without foundation. 

We AFFIRM. 

-7-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6243 Document: 010110036143 Date Filed: 06/04/1990 Page: 7