Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilburn Richard HOLLANDER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-21
Citations: 95 F. App'x 560
Docket Number: No. 03-20351
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilburn Richard HOLLANDER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 560–561

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilburn Richard HOLLANDER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-20351.
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 21, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Richard O. Ely, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Aurora Ruth Bearse, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Wilburn Richard Hollander appeals from the sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty-plea conviction for receiving or possessing firearms that were not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. He argues that the district court erred by denying application of an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. This court "will affirm a sentencing court's decision not to award a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 unless it is without foundation." United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 458 (5th Cir.2002) (internal quotations marks and footnote omitted).
Hollander's contention that the Government's evidence produced at sentencing was incredible lacks merit. As there was an evidentiary foundation for the district court's denial of an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.