United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-10383

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Quinton Walker, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-210-9

Before Higginbotham, Costa, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Quinton Walker pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to 

possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The plea agreement omitted any 

discussion of forfeiture. Subsequently, the Government refused to move for 

a third-level reduction in Walker’s offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) 

for acceptance of responsibility unless Walker acquiesced to forfeiture. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 1, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-10383 Document: 00515761144 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2021
No. 19-10383

2

Walker then waived his interest in forfeiture, and the Government moved for 

the reduction, which the district court granted. The district court sentenced 

Walker to 87 months in prison and three years of supervised release, and the 

court ordered him to forfeit $13,429.

In his sole issue on appeal, Walker asserts that the district court erred 

by allowing the Government to withhold a third-level reduction under 

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) until he agreed to waive forfeiture.1 Because Walker did 

not raise this argument before the district court, our review is for plain error.2

To show plain error, Walker must show that an error occurred, the error was 

clear or obvious rather than subject to reasonable dispute, and the error 

affected his substantial rights.3 If he makes such a showing, this Court has the 

discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”4

Section 3E1.1(a) decreases the offense level by two levels if a 

“defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his 

offense.”5 Section 3E1.1(b) allows for a further reduction of one level if the 

offense level prior to an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction is 16 or more 

and if the Government moves for such a reduction, representing that the 

defendant “has assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of his 

own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a plea 

1 Walker’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver. But the Government does 

not invoke the appeal waiver here, so we need not consider whether the waiver bars our 

review of Walker’s forfeiture argument. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th 

Cir. 2006).

2 United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281, 287 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

3 Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

4 Id. (cleaned up).

5 U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).

Case: 19-10383 Document: 00515761144 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2021
No. 19-10383

3

of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and 

permitting the government and the court to allocate their resources 

efficiently.”6 The “government should not withhold [a § 3E1.1(b)] motion 

based on interests not identified in § 3E1.1, such as whether the defendant 

agrees to waive his or her right to appeal.”7

As Walker concedes, this Court has not squarely addressed the issue 

of whether the Government can condition a § 3E1.1(b) motion on the 

defendant agreeing to a forfeiture of property. We therefore cannot conclude 

the district court plainly erred.8 The judgment of the district court is 

affirmed. 

6 Id. § 3E1.1.(b).

7 Id. § 3E1.1, cmt. 6.

8 See United States v. Urbina-Fuentes, 900 F.3d 687, 696 (5th Cir. 2018) (“[I]f a 

defendant’s theory requires the extension of precedent, any potential error could not have 

been plain.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); United States v. Evans, 587 

F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 2009) (“We ordinarily do not find plain error when we have not 

previously addressed an issue.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Case: 19-10383 Document: 00515761144 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/01/2021