P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 41150 Su m m ar y Cal 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. R IC H A R D K E IT H T AY L O 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 E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 4 : 0 8
- CR- 1 6
- ALL B ef ore R E AV L E Y , JO L LY , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * R ich a rd K e ith T a y lorp lea d e dg u il t yt o b e in gafelo n inp o ss e ss ion of a f i r e ar m , i n v i o l at i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 922 ( g) ( 1) , and w as se nt e nc e d t o 2 35 m o nt hs o f im p r is o n m e n t. T a y lo rch a lle n g e s th e d is tr ic t co u r t’s d e n ia l o f are d u c tio n in h i s base of

fen se l evelpu rsuan tt o U . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1. H e argu es t h at t h e di st ri ct court shou l d n o t h a v e w i t h h el d the t w o- l eveladj u st m en tf or acc eptan ce of responsibi l i t y on t h e groun ds t h at h e w ai t ed un t i lt h e m orni n g of t ri alt o enter United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust4, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 41150

2 h i s gui l t y pl ea. Fu rth e r, h e a rgues that he t ruthful l y ad m i t t ed the cond u ct com p ri singthe off

en se e a rl y inthe pr oce ed i n gs an dtha t he d i d n ot en ter a g u i l ty pl ea earl i er because h e l acked an “ u n derst an di n g of t h e process , ” l acked “c o m m u n ic a tio n w i t h co u n s e l re p r e s e n tin gh im th r o u g h th e tim e o f h is p le a ,” an d l acked a “ cl ear u n derst an di n g of t h e ‘ arm ed career’provi si on s and how t h ey crea teda m i n i m u m f i ft ee n ( 1 5 ) ye a r sen ten ce for h i s off en se.” An app e l l at e c o ur t ’ s r e vi e w o f as e nt e nc e m u stst ar tw i t h t he i s s ue w het hert he di st r i c tc our tc om m i t t ed any “ si gni f i c ant pro c edur al er r or , s uch as fai l i ng t o c al c ul at e (or i m pro per l y c al c ul at i ng) t he G ui del i nes r ange. ” G al lv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 8 S . C t . 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (2 0 0 7 ). W e r e v ie w th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s i n terp reta ti on or a p p l i c a tio n o f th e S en ten ci n g G u i d eli n es d e n ov o, a n di ts fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c le a re r r o r . Uni t e d S t at e s v . Ar m s t r o ng , 550 F. 3d 382, 404 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), pet i t i on f or c ert . f

i led(M a r . 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 ) (N o . 0 8 -9 3 3 9 ). W h eth er a d efen d a n t cl ea rl y d em on strate s an acce p tan ce of resp on sibi l i ty is a q u e s tio n o f fa c t. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Perez , 915 F. 2d 947, 950 ( 5t h C i r . 1990) . Af i n di n g t h at a defenda n tha s not accepted res pon sibi l i t y i s exam i n ed u n der a s t a n d a r do f

r e v i e w e v e n mo r e d e fe r e n t i a lt h a n ap u r e c l e a r l ye r r o ne o us s ta n d a r d . Un i t ed S t ate s v. A ngeles- Mend oza , 4 0 7 F .3d 7 4 2 , 7 5 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); seealso § 3 E 1 .1 , c o m m e n t . (n .5 ). T h is c o u r t“w il l a ff ir m as e n t e n c in gc o u r t ’s de c i s i o n no tt o a w ard a reduc t i o n und e r[ § 3 E1. 1] unl e s s i ti s w i t ho ut fou n d a ti on . ” Un itedS ta tes v. S o lis , 299 F. 3d 420, 458 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) (i nt er nal q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d). T h i s c ou rtha s r ou t i n el y u ph el d t h e den i alof a redu ct i on f

or acc eptan ce of r es ponsibi l i t y w hen a defendantw ai t s untilthe eveof t r i alt o e nt era g ui l t y pl ea. S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . D i az , 3 9 F .3 d5 6 8 , 5 7 0 ( 5 t h C ir . 1 9 9 4 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l d er , 1 5 F .3d 129 2, 129 9 ( 5th C i r. 199 4) . Th e rec ord i n di cat es t h at Ta yl or r ej ec t ed t w o pl ea of

fer s by t he G ove r nm entduri ng t he c our seof t he pr oc ee di ngs andi ns t e adw ait e d un t i lt he m o r ni ng o f t r i alt o ent e rag ui l t y pl e a. Fur t he r , t he di st ri ctcourtdeter m i n ed that Ta ylo r ’ s att i t u de at t h e sentenci n g h eari n g di d n otN o. 08- 41150

3 ref l ectres pon sibi l i t y or c on t ri t i on f or hi s act i on s. Th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof t he do w nw ar d a dj us t m e ntf o ra c c e pt anc e o f

r e s po ns ibil i t y w as notw i t ho ut fo u n d a tio n . S ee S o lis , 2 99 F . 3da t4 58. Ta yl or has n otshow n t h at th e di st ri ct c o u r t c le a r lye r r e din d e n y in gare d u c tio n fo ra c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility . S ee Arm s t r o ng , 550 F. 3d at404. A F F IR M E D .