Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10640 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. J A C KA R V IL T AY L O R , J R ., D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C R
- 186- 1 B ef ore JO L LY , B A R K S D A L E , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Ja c k Ar vilTay l o r , J r . , po s s e s s e d s e ve r alb o m bs c o nt ai ni ng s hr ap ne l
- t yp e m at er i al s, i nc l ud i ngn a i l s a ndm e t a lb a l l s . He p l e dg uil t yt o p o s s e s s i o n o f an u n r e g is te r e dfir e a r m , inv io la tio n o f 2 6 U .S .C . § 5 8 6 1 (d ). T a y lo rch a lle n g e s h is se nt enc e i m pos ed f

oll ow i ng hi s pl ea, c ont en d i n g t he di st r i c tc our ter r ed by de nyi ng an ac c e pt anc e - o f

- r e s po ns ibil i t y r e duc t i o n und e rSe nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne § 3 E 1 .1 . T h is d e n ia l w a s b a s e dp r im a r il yo n th e in c o n s is t e n c yb e t w e e n T a y lo r ’s cl ai m ed i n t en t i on to expl ode the dev i ces l i ke f i recr ackers an d the presentence United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April28, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-10640 Document: 00511094379 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2010N o. 09- 10640

2 i n ve sti ga ti on rep ort’ s (P S R ) stating th e dev i ces w ere “i n ten d ed to h u r t, m a im , andkil l” . ( Bec aus e t hi s pr o vi de d as uf f i c i e ntb as i s upo n whic h to d e ny t he redu ct i on , w e do n otadd ress w h et h er Ta yl or’ s s t atem en t s r egard i n g a rel ated c o u n te r fe itin go ffe n s e a ls o w o u lds u p p o r t s u c h d e n ia l.) Ad e fe n d a n t m a yre c e iv e s u c h a n o ffe n s e -le v e lr e d u c t io n if h e “c le a r ly d e m o n str a te s a cc e p ta n ce of re sp o n sib ility for h is o ffen se ”. U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1(a ). In ot h er w ords, t h e defen da n tbears t h e bu rden of dem on st rat i n g t h e reducti on is w a r r a n te d . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Fl u cas, 99 F . 3d177 , 180 ( 5th C i r. 199 6) (per curi am ) . Th e di st ri ctcou rt ’ s d eci si on not t o aw ard a redu ct i on w i l lbe af f i rm ed

“ unl e s s i ti s w i t ho utfo unda t i o n, a st and ar d of re vi e w m o r e def

e r e nt i alt han t he c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s s ta n d a r d ”. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ju arez- D u art e, 513 F. 3d 204, 211 (5 th C ir .) (p e rc u r i a m ) (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d), ce rt. d enie d , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 4 5 2 (2 0 0 8 ). T aylorf

i rstcontends the di st ri ctcourterr ed byf i n di n g h e m a de fal se st atem en t s abou t h i s i n t en ded u se f or t h e exp l osive dev i ces. “A s a general rul e, i n f orm ati on i n t h e [ P S R ] i s presum ed rel i able an d m ay be ad opted by t h e di st ri ct c o ur tw i t ho utf

ur t he ri nquir y i f

t he de fe nda ntfail s t o de m o ns t r at e b y c o m pe t e nt rebu t t alevi den ce tha tt h e i n f orm ati on i s m ater i al l y u n t rue, i n accurate or u n reli a b l e.” Un itedS ta tes v. Ca rb a ja l, 290 F. 3d 277, 287 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m arks an d ci t ati on om i t t ed). T aylorpresented no evidence t o r e butt he P SR’ s f

i ndi ng t hatt he s e de vi c e s w e r e i nt e nde d “t o hur t , m ai m , a nd k il l” . T h e r e fo r e , afo u n d a t io n e x is t e dfo rth e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’s fi n d in gT a y lo r ’s st atem en ti n consi st en tan d fal se. Tay l o ra l s o c o nt e nds a ny i nc o n si st e nc y i s no tab as i s f o rde nyi ng t he acceptance- of

- responsibi l i t y redu ct i on becau se hi s i n t en ded u se f or t h e devi ces wa s n o tr e l e v a n tt o t h e s t a t u t e o f c o n v i c t i o n o rt h e g u i d e l i n e s c a l c u l a t i o n s . An a c c e p ta n c e -o f-r e s p o n s ib ilityre d u c tio n re q u ir e s , in tera lia , “ a show i n g of si n cere c o n t r i t i o n o n th e d e fe n d a n t’s b e h a lf”. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Medina-A n i caci o, 325 F. 3d 638, 648 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. N guyen , 190 F. 3d 656, Case: 09-10640 Document: 00511094379 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2010N o. 09- 10640

3 658 ( 5th C i r. 199 9) ) . I n eval u ati n g a de fen da n t ’ s s i n cerit y, a sentenci n g court

“ m ay con si der a defenda n t ’ s r ef u salt o el ab o ra te o n t h e circum st an ces s u r r o u n d in gh is o ffe n s e to th e p r o b a tio n o ffic e r”. I d. (c i t i ng Uni t e d S t at e s v. Ne v a r e z-A rr eo la , 8 85 F. 2d2 43 , 2 44 , 2 46 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 9) ) . The r e i s e vi den ce Tay l o rfal s e l y de s c r ibe d hi s i nt e nde d us e of t he de vi c e s , w hi c h was pa r to f t he “ci rcu m stan ces su rrou n d i n g h i s off en se”. In sum , T aylorha s not show n t h e den i alof t h e reduction f

or acc eptan ce o f r e s p o n s ib ilityw a s w ith o u t fo u n d a tio n . S ee Ju arez- D u art e, 513 F. 3d at211. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-10640 Document: 00511094379 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/28/2010