FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 2, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 23 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :1 0- cr-0 00 23 -BAE-GRS- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us TRAVIS A. BACON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 2, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARTIN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Trav is A. Baco n p le d g ui lt y to po ss es si onof afir earm by a con vi ct edfel on , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). The Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s p res cri be d a se nt en ce ra ng e o f 77 to 96 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co urt s en te nc edto a te rm of 7 7 m on th s. He n ow ap pe al s h is sen te nc e, pr es en ti ng on e is su e: whet he r in de te rm in in g h is off

en se lev el un de r th e Gui de li ne s, t he di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g h is reque stfora reduc ti on of t he ba se off en se lev el pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actun de r a cl ear e rro r st an da rd . Uni te d Sta tes v. J

or di, 41 8 F .3d12 12 , 12 14 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ Bec au se de m on st rat io n o f whe th er o r no t t he de fen da ntha s p ers on al ly accep te d res po ns ib il it y

forhi s cr im in al co nduc t re qu ire s a c on si de rat io n o f bo th ob jecti ve fact or s an d s ub

jecti ve co ns id erat io ns of t he de fen da nt 's d em ean oran d s in ceri ty, th e d is tri ctco urt's de te rm in at io n wi ll no t b e o ve rtu rn edun le ss itis witho ut fo un da ti on .” Uni te d Sta tes v. C as ti ll o- Val en ci a , 91 7 F .2d49 4, 5 00 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). The d efen da ntbe ars th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng , by a p rep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce, the factua l b as is fora § 3 E1.1 reduc ti on . Uni te d Sta te s v. As kew , 19 3 F.3 d 1 18 1, 1 18 3 n .3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . Sect io n 3 E1.1 of the Gui de li ne s s ta te s t ha t t he ba se off en se lev el is de crea se d b y

two po in ts if t he de fen da nt“ cl earl y de m on st rat es acce pt an ce o f 2res po ns ib il it y forhi s o ffen se .” U.S.S.G § 3 E1.1 (a). “ To d et erm in e whe th er a de fen da ntqu al ifi es , a se nt en ci ng co urt s ho ul d c on si de r whe th er h e tr ut hf ul ly ad m it te d o r di d n otfal se ly den y an y ad di ti on al rel ev an t co nduc t.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Co e , 79 F.3d12 6, 1 27 (11 th Cir . 19 96 )(quo ta ti onom it te d) . In Co e , we hel d t ha t

“ rel ev an t co nduc t i nc lu de s al l ac ts th atoc cu rreddu rin g t he co m m is si on of t he of fen se ,” no t m erel y

act s t ha t ar e d ire ct ly relev an t t o c riminal li ab il ity . Id. Here, the di st ric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g tha t Ba co n d idno t acce ptres po ns ib il it y

forall rel ev an t co nduc t. The co urt was no t s at is fie d t ha t h e ha d b een tru th fu l re ga rd in g h ow h e o bt ai ne d p os se ss io n o f th e fi rearm s, wh ic h fo rm th e b as is of h is off

en se , refer en ci ng th e in co ns is te nc ie s b etween hi s af fid av it an d h is in te rv ie w with t he po li ce. Add it io na ll y , th e co urt ex pl ic it ly stat edth atit di d n otacce ptth e fac tu al st at em en ts in th e p res en te nc e rep ort as en ti rel y accu rat e. Inan y ev en t, we n eedno t v acat e an d re m an d fo r erro r if we co nc lu de , “ on th e rec or d a s a wh ol e, th atth e err orwas h arm le ss , i.e., th atth e err ordi d n otaffe ct th e d is tri ctco urt's sel ect io n o f th e se nt en ce i m po se d.” W

il li ams v. Uni te d Sta tes , 50 3 U.S. 1 93 , 20 3, 1 12 S.Ct . 11 12 , 11 20 -2 1, 1 17 L.Ed.2d34 1 (1 99 2) . In Uni te d St at es v. Keen e , we dec li ne d t o re vi ew th e ap pl ic at io n o f a two- po in t thr eat -o fde ath s en te nc e en ha nc em en t, s ta ti ng “ itis un ne ces sa ry forus to de ci de th e en ha nc em en t i ss ue ” b ecau se “ th e d is tri ctco urt t ol d u s t ha t t he enhanc em en t m ad e 3no di ffer en ce t o t he sen te nc e itim po se d.” 47 0 F .3d13 47 , 13 48 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). In Kee ne , we add edth atth e se nt en ce i m po se d m us t b e rea so nabl e “ ev enif t he gu id el in es is su e h adbe ende ci de d i n t he de fen da nt ’s fav or .” Id. at 1 34 9. In m ak in g th is de te rm in at io n, we as su m e “ ex act ly the same con du ct[of th e d efen da nt ] an d ot he r fac to rs in th e cas e.” Id. at 1 34 9- 50 . Here, the di st ric t co urt ex pl ic it ly stat edth atitwou ldim po se th e sa m e 7 7- m on th s’ sen te nc e, reg ard le ss of wh ethe r orno t i t g ran te d areduc ti on for acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity . Even if t he gu id el in e is su e h adbe enres ol ve d i n Bac on ’s fav or , th e h ig h- en d o f hi s s en te nc e ran ge wou ldha ve be en71 m on th s. Bac ondo es no t co nt en d t ha t h is sen te nc e was un reas on ab ly sev ere, an d t he reco rd do es no t s ho w th ata 6- m on th va ria nc e wou ldbe un reas on ab le . AFFIR MED.

4