Opinion ID: 2826310
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Witness Security Program

Text: Doe urges that the District Court improperly considered his decision not to enter the Witness Security Program in its sentencing decision. Doe is mistaken. The District Court stated that Doe had the “right to make [the] decision[]” not to enter the Witness Security Program, but that his decision “led [Doe] back to the place where [he] knew [he was] at the greatest risk of again becoming involved in criminal activity.” (App. 157.) The District Court then properly analyzed the sentencing factors, including the nature, circumstances, and seriousness of Doe’s violation, Doe’s criminal history and criminal characteristics, and the need for deterrence. We conclude that the District Court’s reference to the Witness Security Program did not improperly affect its sentencing decision. 2 Doe relies on United States v. Cawthorne, 226 F.3d 641, 2000 WL 1028980 (5th Cir. July 5, 2000) (unpublished table decision), a non-precedential, out-of-Circuit decision, but Cawthorne is distinguishable because, in that case, the entirety of the supporting evidence was a probation officer’s testimony about the contents of an uncorroborated police report. Id. at . 4