Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01865/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01865-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John McCauley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1865

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

John McCauley, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 6, 2005

Filed: June 20, 2005

___________

Before BYE, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John McCauley appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to four counts of distributing and aiding and abetting the distribution

of cocaine and cocaine base, and one count of failing to appear for trial. Pursuant to

a plea agreement stipulation that McCauley qualified as a career offender, the district

court sentenced him to 366 months imprisonment and 8 years supervised release. On

appeal, McCauley argues that he should have received a reduction in his offense level

for accepting responsibility. 

Appellate Case: 04-1865 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917496
-2-

The district court determined that McCauley had obstructed justice when he

failed to appear for his scheduled trial, and thus he could receive a reduction for

acceptance of responsibility only if his was an “extraordinary case,” see U.S.S.G.

§ 3E1.1, cmt. n.4. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying

the reduction after it carefully considered the totality of the circumstances, including

that McCauley’s obstructive conduct had been an ongoing effort and that the court

disbelieved his testimony regarding his reasons for flight and his efforts to turn

himself in. See United States v. Perez, 270 F.3d 737, 739 (8th Cir. 2001) (explaining

the standard of review); United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961, 968-69 (8th Cir.

1999) (listing the factors the court should consider).

We also conclude that McCauley cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability

that he would have received a more favorable sentence under an advisory Guidelines

regime. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 552 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1865 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917496