Court Opinion

ID: 9392482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 00:00:30.306027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:46.106175
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50851        Document: 00516738934             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50851
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                     May 4, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Jaden Rene Johnson,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:22-CR-80-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Defendant-Appellant Jaden Rene Johnson pleaded guilty to
   possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
   §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Johnson was sentenced to forty-one months
   imprisonment and three years supervised release. He appeals the district

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50851      Document: 00516738934           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                     No. 22-50851

   court’s refusal to apply an offense level reduction based on acceptance of
   responsibility. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM.
          After Johnson was indicted and before he pled guilty, he assaulted
   another detainee in a detention facility. When computing Johnson’s offense
   level, the probation officer did not apply a decrease for acceptance of
   responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 because of that assault. Johnson
   submitted objections to the presentencing report (“PSR”), in which he took
   issue with the lack of reduction in his offense level. The district court adopted
   all of the findings in the PSR and declined to apply a reduction for acceptance
   of responsibility, imposing a within-guidelines sentence of forty-one months
   imprisonment. Johnson claims that the district court erred by denying him an
   offense level decrease for acceptance of responsibility.
          We review a district court’s interpretation or application of the
   Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United
   States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008). However, the
   district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility will be
   affirmed unless the decision was “without foundation.” Id. at 211. This
   standard of review is “more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard.”
   United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 525 (5th Cir. 1999).
          Here, the district court did not err in refusing to grant a reduction for
   acceptance of responsibility. While in detention pending the disposition of
   his case, Johnson assaulted another detainee. The district court properly
   considered that incident in determining whether Johnson was eligible for a
   reduction because the Sentencing Guidelines direct district courts to
   consider whether “the defendant withdrew from criminal conduct after
   being charged in the pending offense.” United States v. Franks, 46 F.3d 402,
   406 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (citing § 3E1.1, comment n.1(B)). Whether
   Johnson’s conduct was related to the charged offense of possession of a

                                          2
Case: 22-50851      Document: 00516738934          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                    No. 22-50851

   firearm by a convicted felon is irrelevant because “[a] district court may also
   consider any violation of the defendant's pretrial release conditions.” United
   States v. Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2020) (emphasis
   added); see also United States v. Watkins, 911 F.2d 983, 985 (5th Cir. 1990)
   (holding that “acceptance of responsibility includes refraining from any
   violations of the law”).
          Because Johnson engaged in criminal conduct after being charged with
   the instant offense, the district court’s denial of a reduction was not without
   foundation. The sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                          3