Court Opinion

ID: 9480871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:01:17.709084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:58.245382
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Nov. 26, 1990.
Before KING, GARWOOD and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In our earlier opinion, we adequately discussed appellant’s contention that the district court grossly abused its discretion both by upwardly departing from the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines, and by denying appellant’s request for a two-point reduction in his sentencing level for acceptance of responsibility. Appellant also contends that we erred by stating that he did not object to the Presen-tence Report (PSR). We did not so state.
We indicated that a passage from the PSR supported the district court’s determination that appellant was not entitled to a two-point reduction in his sentence for acceptance of responsibility. We did not point out that appellant objected to that portion of the PSR. The district court was entitled to rely on that portion of the PSR, however, despite appellant’s objection, because the district court resolved the specific issue of fact to which appellant objected. See United States v. Rodriguez, 897 F.2d 1324, 1327 (5th Cir.1990) (if defendant objects to PSR’s findings with specificity and clarity, the district court must resolve the “specifically disputed issues of fact if it intends to use those facts as the basis for its sentence.”) The specifically disputed issue of fact was whether appellant accepted responsibility for his conduct. The district court determined that he did not. As noted in our earlier opinion, the district court did not grossly abuse its discretion by so finding.
It is ORDERED that appellant’s motion for leave to file his petition for rehearing out of time is GRANTED. Appellant’s petition for rehearing is DENIED.