UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TRAVEON SHAQUILLE MARTIN,

 Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:17-cr-00237-BR-1)

Submitted: August 8, 2018 Decided: September 7, 2018

Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Research & Writing 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Traveon Shaquille Martin pled guilty to two federal drug-distribution charges and 

two federal firearm charges, and the district court sentenced him to 130 months of 

imprisonment. Martin now appeals his sentence, arguing that the court committed 

significant procedural error by declining to decrease his sentencing guidelines offense 

level by three levels for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. We affirm.

I

In October 2016, officers with the Raleigh (NC) Police Department (RPD) made 

two separate controlled purchases of crack cocaine from Martin. Martin was not arrested 

at that time. Several months later, two RPD officers approached Martin as he walked 

down a Raleigh street, knowing that he had outstanding arrest warrants. Martin initially 

attempted to flee, but when cornered, he began to resist arrest, injuring one of the officers 

in the process. During the altercation, Martin tried to grab something from his waistband, 

which the officers interpreted as an attempt to reach for a weapon. The officers 

eventually subdued and arrested Martin and seized a loaded .38 caliber revolver (which 

was in his waistband), 2 grams of crack cocaine, and $173 in cash.

A federal grand jury subsequently indicted Martin, charging him with two counts 

of distribution of a quantity of cocaine base, possession of a firearm by a felon, and 

possession of a stolen firearm. In October 2017, Martin pled guilty to all of the charges 

without a plea agreement.

In November 2017, while Martin was incarcerated in the Brunswick County (NC) 

jail awaiting sentencing, he assaulted a corrections officer who was handing out inmate 
3

food trays. Martin slapped a food tray out of the officer’s hands and punched the officer 

several times in the face and head, knocking him to the ground. Martin continued to 

attack the officer while he was on the ground. After order was restored, the officer was 

transported to the hospital and treated for cuts and abrasions, including one on his head 

that required stitches. The officer reported that he had lost consciousness during the 

attack. For this incident, Martin was charged with several state-law assault offenses.

In preparing Martin’s presentence report (PSR), the probation officer calculated a 

total offense level of 26. Because Martin was in Criminal History Category IV, his 

advisory sentencing range was 92-115 months. As part of the total offense level 

calculation, the probation officer determined that because of his attack on the corrections 

officer, Martin should not receive a reduction to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.

That section provides for a two-level reduction in the offense level if the defendant 

“clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” It further provides 

that if the defendant qualifies for the two-level reduction, he may earn an additional onelevel reduction by timely notifying the government of his intent to plead guilty.

Martin objected to the PSR recommendation, arguing that he should receive a 

three-level reduction because he accepted responsibility for his October 2016 and 

November 2017 misconduct and timely pled guilty. The probation officer responded by 

noting that Application Note 1(b) to § 3E1.1 specifies that an appropriate consideration 

for determining whether a defendant qualifies for an acceptance of responsibility 

reduction is whether the defendant has voluntarily terminated or withdrawn from criminal 

conduct or associations. After recounting the November incident, the probation officer 
4

again asserted that Martin should not receive the § 3E1.1 reduction. The probation officer 

observed, however, that if the district court sustained the objection, Martin’s offense level 

would fall to 23 and his advisory sentencing range would be 70-87 months.

Through his counsel, Martin pressed his objection at his sentencing hearing, 

reiterating that he pled guilty in a timely manner and that he accepted responsibility for 

the October 2016 and November 2017 incidents. Martin also noted that he potentially 

faced additional state imprisonment time for assaulting the corrections officer and 

requested that the district court allow him to resolve that matter with the state authorities 

separately from his federal sentence. In response, the government acknowledged that 

Martin pled guilty in a timely manner, but it otherwise took no position on the issue. 

After reviewing video of the November 2017 incident, which showed Martin assaulting 

the corrections officer, the court overruled Martin’s objection.

Having overruled the objection, the district court set the advisory sentencing range 

at 92-115 months. The court then considered the government’s motion for upward 

departure, which was premised on Martin’s history of violent conduct. The government 

provided an overview of several violent incidents involving Martin, including the 

October 2016 and November 2017 incidents; requested an upward departure to an 

advisory sentencing range of 120-150 months; and asserted that 150 months would be the 

appropriate sentence. Before ruling on the departure motion, the court heard testimony 

from one of the RPD officers who arrested Martin, listened to victim-impact statements 

from the corrections officer whom Martin attacked and the owner of the stolen firearm 
5

Martin possessed, permitted Martin to speak on his own behalf, and considered legal 

arguments from counsel.

Ultimately, after reflecting at length on the relevant sentencing factors, the court 

denied the upward departure motion. However, the court varied upward from the 

advisory sentencing range and sentenced Martin to 130 months of imprisonment. Among 

other things, the court recognized that Martin may suffer from bipolar disorder, which 

might be the cause of his “total and complete disregard for the law,” but it nonetheless 

explained (based on Martin’s allocution) that Martin was not sorry for his conduct, “he’s 

just sorry he got caught.” J.A. 77-78. 

II

Martin’s only contention on appeal is that the district court clearly erred by 

denying him a three-level reduction to his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. 

Martin acknowledges that voluntary termination or withdrawal from criminal conduct is 

an appropriate factor to consider when deciding whether a defendant has accepted 

responsibility under § 3E1.1, but he argues that the court gave excessive weight to his 

November 2017 attack on the corrections officer. In his view, his timely decision to plead 

guilty, his acceptance of responsibility for the underlying drug and firearm offenses, his 

bipolar disorder, and the potential additional punishment he might receive under state law 

for the November 2017 attack mandate that he receive the three-level reduction.

We review a district court’s decision concerning an acceptance-of-responsibility 

adjustment for clear error. United States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007).

We must give great deference to the district court’s decision because it is in the best 
6

position to evaluate the defendant’s acts and statements to determine whether the 

defendant has accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct. Id. To earn the reduction, 

a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he has clearly recognized 

and affirmatively accepted personal responsibility for his criminal conduct. Id. A guilty 

plea may be evidence of acceptance of personal responsibility, but it does not, standing 

alone, entitle a defendant to a reduction as a matter of right. Id. In the absence of 

evidence compelling us to conclude that the district court has committed clear error in its 

evaluation of the defendant, we will uphold its decision on the § 3E1.1 reduction. Id.

“The decision to grant an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction often depends on 

the actions of the defendant following his or her arrest or plea.” Id. at 240. Even unrelated 

criminal conduct may make an acceptance of responsibility reduction inappropriate. 

United States v. Arellano, 291 F.3d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 2002).

As we have recounted, in November 2017, while Martin was awaiting sentencing 

in this case, he attacked and beat a corrections officer. The evidence supporting this 

incident is undisputed. Although Martin offers reasons attempting to explain his conduct 

(i.e., bipolar disorder) and to have the district court essentially ignore it for the purposes 

of this sentencing determination (i.e., his potential state punishment), neither reason 

remotely establishes that the court clearly erred by denying the acceptance of 

responsibility reduction. Simply put, Martin pled guilty in a timely manner, but his postplea attack on the corrections officer is sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding

that he failed to terminate or withdraw from criminal conduct. We find nothing in the 

record to cast doubt on that finding.
7

III

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err by 

denying Martin an offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, 

we affirm Martin’s sentence.

AFFIRMED