Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-10217

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSHUA LOHMANN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 4:08-CR-147-4

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joshua Lohmann pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or

more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 11, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-10217 Document: 00511025621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2010
No. 09-10217

2

phetamine. He appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by denying credit for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. 

Although following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the sentencing guidelines are advisory only, and we review an ultimate sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court still must

properly calculate the guideline-sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Generally, we review the district court’s application of the

guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v.

Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Villegas,

404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005). 

We accord “even greater deference” than under clear error review to the

refusal to grant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. United States v.

Buchanan, 485 F.3d 274, 287 (5th Cir. 2007). We will not reverse a denial under

§ 3E.1.1 unless the decision is “without foundation.” United States v. JuarezDuarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2452 (2008). 

Lohmann contends that the district court erred by denying credit for acceptance of responsibility based on his objection to the drug quantity determination set forth in the presentence report (“PSR”). In the district court, Lohmann

objected to being held accountable for 23 ounces of methamphetamine on the

strength of statements made by co-defendant Cory Mitchell, who indicated that

he had obtained methamphetamine from Lohmann’s mother and that he had

then distributed that methamphetamine to Lohmann. The PSR also reported

that Lohmann had made a statement denying that his mother had been involved

in methamphetamine distribution. 

As Lohmann notes, there was testimony at sentencing from a law enforcement officer to the effect that it was not feasible for drug transactions between

Mitchell and Lohmann’s mother to have occurred. The district court, however,

in overruling Lohmann’s objection to drug quantity, implicitly determined that

Mitchell’s account was accurate. The court’s view of the evidence regarding drug

Case: 09-10217 Document: 00511025621 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2010
No. 09-10217

3

quantity is plausible in light of the record, which includes Mitchell’s statements

as reported in the PSR and other evidence that Lohmann’s mother trafficked in

methamphetamine. See United States v. Burns, 526 F.3d 852, 859 (5th Cir.

2008); United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 291 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006). The denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is not “without foundation.”

See Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 211. 

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Lohman’s motion for substitute

counsel, which was filed after the completion of briefing, is DENIED.

Case: 09-10217 Document: 00511025621 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2010