Court Opinion

ID: 9396311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-20 21:00:20.241255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:15.827653
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4203      Doc: 33         Filed: 05/19/2023      Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4203

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ROBERT ANTON WARREN,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:20-cr-00062-RBH-1)

        Submitted: May 1, 2023                                             Decided: May 19, 2023

        Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Leslie T. Sarji, SARJI LAW FIRM, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for
        Appellant. Corey F. Ellis, United States Attorney, Lauren L. Hummel, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4203      Doc: 33          Filed: 05/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert Anton Warren appeals his below-Guidelines range sentence after pleading

        guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        § 922(g)(1). On appeal, he contends that the district court erred in denying him an offense

        level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under USSG § 3E1.1. We affirm.

               We review a district court’s denial of an acceptance of responsibility reduction

        “only for clear error.” United States v. Carver, 916 F.3d 398, 404 (4th Cir. 2019). “The

        defendant bears the burden of showing he has clearly recognized and affirmatively

        accepted personal responsibility for his criminal conduct, and this does not flow

        automatically from a guilty plea.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               “In determining whether a defendant has satisfied this standard, a sentencing court

        may consider, in relevant part, (a) truthful admissions to the underlying offenses or related

        conduct; (b) voluntary withdrawal from crime; (c) voluntary and prompt surrender to

        authorities; and (d) the timeliness of the defendant’s apparent acceptance of responsibility.”

        United States v. Bolton, 858 F.3d 905, 915 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1).

        “Indeed, [e]ven unrelated criminal conduct may make an acceptance of responsibility

        reduction inappropriate.” United States v. Cooper, 998 F.3d 806, 811 (8th Cir. 2021)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “[w]e have upheld denials of reductions for

        acceptance of responsibility where, as here, the defendant continues criminal activity after

        apprehension, indictment, or guilty plea.” Bolton, 858 F.3d at 915.

               “It is well established that a court may, for purposes of sentencing, consider any

        relevant information before it, including uncorroborated hearsay, provided that the

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4203      Doc: 33         Filed: 05/19/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its accuracy.” United States v.

        Mondragon, 860 F.3d 227, 233 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

        Moreover, “the defendant has an affirmative duty to make a showing that the information

        in the presentence report is unreliable, and articulate the reasons why the facts contained

        therein are untrue or inaccurate.” United States v. Fowler, 58 F.4th 142, 151 (4th Cir.

        2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Without such a showing, the government meets

        its burden of proving those facts by a preponderance of the evidence, and the district court

        is free to adopt the findings of the presentence report without more specific inquiry or

        explanation.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               The probation officer recommended denying Warren a reduction for acceptance of

        responsibility based on his arrest on state charges involving two controlled drug buys at his

        residence while he was on pretrial release for this offense. Warren objected to the denial,

        arguing that he truthfully and timely admitted his offense and relevant conduct, thereby

        avoiding the time and expense of a trial. The district court overruled the objection but

        considered his argument as a mitigating factor and granted him a downward variance to a

        sentence within the Guidelines range that would have applied with the reduction.

               On appeal, Warren contends that the district court erred in denying him a reduction

        by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the reliability of the statements

        in the presentence report regarding the controlled drug buys. However, at his bond hearing,

        the magistrate judge found probable cause to believe that he committed a state crime while

        on pretrial release; and at sentencing, Warren confirmed he did not deny the two controlled

        drug buys at his residence while on release. Thus, we conclude the district court did not

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4203       Doc: 33         Filed: 05/19/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        err, plainly or otherwise, in adopting these factual findings without further inquiry. See

        Fowler, 58 F.4th at 151-52; Mondragon, 860 F.3d at 233. Moreover, we find no clear error

        in the district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral

        argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

        before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                          AFFIRMED

                                                      4