NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0978n.06 No. 12-6157 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. FENG LIU, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; GRIFFI N, Circuit Judge; BELL, District Judge. *
PER CURIAM. Feng Liu appeals his sentence for structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements. As set forth below, we affirm. A federal grand jury returned a multi-defe ndant, multi-count superseding indictment in which Liu was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. (W.D. Tenn. 2:08-cr-20389). Liu subsequently pleaded guilty to an information charging him w ith structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a) and 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.11 and 103.22 (W.D. Tenn. 2:12-cr-20121), and the government dismissed the prio r indictment against him. At sentencing, the district court accepted the guidelines range recomme nded by the parties, eight to fourteen months

* The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, United Stat es District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.No. 12-6157 United States v. Feng Liu of imprisonment, and sentenced Liu to three y ears of probation, including eight months of home detention with electronic monitoring. On appeal, Liu contends that the district court erred in denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and in failing to remove any mention of the prior marijuana conspiracy indictment from his presentence report. By failing to provide any developed argumentati on in support of his claim that the district court erred in denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, Liu has waived this issue. See United States v. Johnson , 440 F.3d 832, 845-46 (6th Cir. 2006). Regardless, the district court did not clearly err in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Theunick , 651 F.3d 578, 588 (6th Cir. 2011) (reviewing denial of reduction for acceptance of responsibility for clear error). USSG § 3E1.1(a) provides for a two-level decrease in a defendant’s offense level “[i]f the defendant clearly demonstr ates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” In determining whether a defendant has accepted responsibility, the district court may consider whether the defendant truthfully admits or doe s not falsely deny “any additional relevant conduct for which the defendant is accountable under § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduc t).” USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(A)). Although “a defendant is not required to volunteer, or affirmatively admit, relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction in order to obtain a reduction . . . , a defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously contests, relevantconduct that the court determines to be true has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility.” Id

. At the direction of his landlord, Liu madetwo deposits totaling approximately $11,000 into
the same bank account at different bank branches on the same day. Liu claimed that he did not know that the funds that he deposited were the proceeds of unlawful activity. Cons idering the context, the

-2-No. 12-6157 United States v. Feng Liu district court found that it was “pretty obvious” that these funds were drug proceeds. We can discern no clear error in the denial of a reduction for accep tance of responsibility where the district court found that Liu had attempted to minimize this relevant conduct. See United States v. Lay , 583 F.3d 436, 448-49 (6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Wolfe , 71 F.3d 611, 616 (6th Cir. 1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to remove information related to the prior marijuana conspiracy indictment from Liu’s presentence report. See United States v. Bartlett , 416 F. App’x 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2011) (“We have reviewed compliance with many aspects of Rule 32 for abuse of discretion.”); United States v. LeBlanc , 762 F.2d 502, 505 (6th Cir. 1985). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(d)(3) requires three exclusions from a defendant’s presentence report, none of which apply to the prior indictment. Under Rule 32(d)(2)(A)(i), the presentence report must contain “the defendant’s hi story and characteristics, including . . . any prior criminal record.” The prior indictment falls within that category of information. Accordingly, we affirm Liu’s sentence.

-3-