Court Opinion

ID: 9375747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 19:00:54.545465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:01.374310
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10700         Document: 00516658730             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/28/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10700
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                              February 28, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Sarah Dillon,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:21-CR-200-2
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Sarah Dillon pleaded guilty to three counts of possession of stolen mail
   and received concurrent, within-guidelines sentences of 21 months. On
   appeal, she challenges the district court’s denial of a sentencing adjustment
   for acceptance of responsibility. Finding no error, we AFFIRM.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10700      Document: 00516658730          Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/28/2023

                                    No. 22-10700

          Section 3E1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two-level
   reduction in the offense level if the defendant “clearly demonstrates
   acceptance of responsibility for [her] offense.” § 3E1.1(a). The defendant
   must establish that the reduction is warranted. United States v. Flucas, 99
   F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 1996). Although a guilty plea constitutes “significant
   evidence” of a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, it does not
   automatically entitle her to a two-level reduction, and “this evidence may be
   outweighed by conduct of the defendant that is inconsistent with such
   acceptance of responsibility.” § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3); see Flucas, 99 F.3d at
   180.
          This court reviews the district court’s interpretation and application
   of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error.
   United States v. Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d 407, 410 (5th Cir. 2020).
   Because the sentencing court is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant’s
   acceptance of responsibility, this court affords great deference to the district
   court’s determination and will “affirm the denial of a reduction for
   acceptance of responsibility unless it is without foundation, a standard of
   review more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard.” United States
   v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1017 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted); see also § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5).
          It is not reversible error for the district court to deny a § 3E1.1(a)
   reduction where the defendant failed to comply with conditions of her
   pretrial release and engaged in post-arrest criminal conduct. See United
   States v. Hooten, 942 F.2d 878, 882-83 (5th Cir. 1991); Hinojosa-Almance, 977
   F.3d at 411; Flucas, 99 F.3d at 180. It is undisputed that Dillon violated her
   pretrial release conditions by failing to comply with substance abuse
   treatment, failing to attend counseling sessions, failing to submit to
   urinalyses, failing to report to probation, and by using drugs while on pretrial
   release. Accordingly, the district court’s determination that Dillon was not

                                          2
Case: 22-10700     Document: 00516658730          Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/28/2023

                                   No. 22-10700

   entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was not without
   foundation. See Lord, 915 F.3d at 1017; Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d at 411.
         For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                        3