Source: https://openjurist.org/958/f2d/240/united-states-v-p-wichmann
Timestamp: 2019-12-12 21:25:06
Document Index: 408855210

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 846', '§ 924', '§ 3146', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3']

958 F2d 240 United States v. P Wichmann | OpenJurist
958 F. 2d 240 - United States v. P Wichmann
958 F2d 240 United States v. P Wichmann
958 F.2d 240
Dennis P. WICHMANN, Appellant.
No. 91-1661.
Dennis Paul Wichmann appeals from a final judgment entered in the United States District Court1 for the Northern District of Iowa following Wichmann's guilty plea to conspiracy to traffic in cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp.1991), carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug crime in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West Supp.1991), and failing to appear for trial in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3146 (West Supp.1991). The district court sentenced Wichmann under the federal sentencing guidelines to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 90 months, 60 months and 15 months, four years of supervised release, a $1,500.00 fine, restitution of $1,820.00, and a special assessment of $150.00. For reversal, Wichmann argues that the district court erred in (1) giving him a three-level enhancement for being a manager or supervisor and (2) denying him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Wichmann first claims that there is no evidence to support the three-level enhancement for being a manager or supervisor of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. Id. § 3B1.1(b). This is a question of fact which we review under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Sutera, 933 F.2d 641, 649 (8th Cir.1991); United States v. Streeter, 907 F.2d 781, 787 (8th Cir.1990) (Streeter ); United States v. Collar, 904 F.2d 441, 442 (8th Cir.1990).
Wichmann also argues that the district court erred in denying him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.2 Id. § 3E1.1. We give great deference to the district court when "reviewing its evaluation of a defendant's acceptance of responsibility, and will disturb the district court's decision only if it is without foundation." United States v. Russell, 913 F.2d 1288, 1295 (8th Cir.1990) (Russell ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1687, 114 L.Ed.2d 81 (1991); see Streeter, 907 F.2d at 787; U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, note 5 (1990).
We disagree. A guilty plea does not automatically entitle a defendant to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Russell, 913 F.2d at 1295; Streeter, 907 F.2d at 787; United States v. Young, 875 F.2d 1357, 1360 (8th Cir.1989). The district court was entitled to consider the fact that Wichmann failed to appear for trial as well as the timeliness of his guilty plea. Additionally, the district court found that (1) Wichmann did not voluntarily terminate or withdraw from his criminal conduct or associations; (2) Wichmann did not voluntarily pay restitution prior to adjudication of guilt; (3) Wichmann did not provide voluntary and truthful admissions to authorities about his crimes; and (4) Wichmann did not voluntarily surrender to authorities after the crimes occurred. We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.