UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WALTER LUDY ANDERSON, A/K/A KAI YOUNG, A/K/A CORY YOUNG, A/K/A COY YOUNG, A/K/A TONY ROMANO, A/K/A GARY B. SMITH, A/K/A RANDOLPH SHEYLDON WOMACK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

11th Cir. | 1994-06-22
No. 93-8195
Before ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
23 F.3d 368 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1994) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: Walter Anderson appeals his sentence for conspiracy to import drugs into the United States and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. Anderson contends that he was entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because he admitted the charges in the indictment and apologized for his conduct and involvement in the offense. He claims that the court denied him the aeceptance-of-responsibility reduction because he exercised his right to object to an enhancement for having a managerial role in the offense. He asserts that although he requested a three-level rather than a four-level increase for having a managerial role in the offense, his request did not constitute a denial of any relevant conduct in the offense. Because the sentencing judge is uniquely positioned to evaluate the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, we defer to the court’s determination and review for clear error. United States v. Carroll, 6 F. 3d 735, 739 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —-, 114 S.Ct. 1234, 127 L.Ed.2d 577 (1994).

If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for the offense, the court may decrease the offense level by two points. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 3El.l(a) (Nov. 1992).

The defendant bears the burden of showing the entitlement to the reduction and must present more than just a guilty plea to demonstrate that he accepted responsibility. United States v. Cruz, 946 F. 2d 122, 126 (11th Cir.1991).

If the defendant falsely denies or frivolously contests relevant conduct that the court determines to be true, the defendant has not accepted responsibility. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment, (n. 1) (Nov. 1992).

In denying Anderson the contested reduction, the court found that he did not timely provide the government information regarding his involvement in the offense and that he was incarcerated three months before entering a guilty plea. The court further found that Anderson denied a portion of his relevant conduct and attempted to minimize his role in the criminal activity by falsely stating the period during which he was involved in the conspiracy.

The record supports the court’s finding that Anderson falsely denied his participation in the whole conspiracy and belies Anderson’s claim that the court denied acceptance of responsibility because he exercised his right to object to the enhancement for his role in the offense.

Accordingly, we affirm the court’s sentence of Anderson. AFFIRMED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. de Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999)
    …cing judge is uniquely positioned to evaluate the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility [under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1],” we have also held that this determination is a factual question entitled to review only for clear error. United States v. Anderson, 23 F. 3d 368, 369 (11th Cir.1994) (per curiam). . We have consistently held that the district court's determination of the defendant's role in the offense is a finding of fact. Although many other circuits have adopted this view, some have concluded, in contrast…
  • United States v. Calhoon, 97 F.3d 518 (11th Cir. 1996)
    …he district court’s decision was not clearly erroneous and that Calhoon’s constitutional rights were not infringed. A defendant bears the burden of showing that he is entitled to an acceptance of responsibility reduction. United States v. Anderson, 23 F. 3d 368 (11th Cir.1994). Even a defendant who pleads guilty is not entitled to a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility as a matter of right. United States v. Anderson, 23 F. 3d at 369; see United States v. Cruz, 946 F. 2d 122, 126 (11th Ci…
  • United States v. Arguedas, 86 F.3d 1054 (11th Cir. 1996)
    …overnment or by timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 (1994). This Court reviews the district court’s determination of acceptance of responsibility only for clear error. United States v. Anderson, 23 F. 3d 368, 369 (11th Cir.1994). Arguedas contends that he was entitled to a three-level downward adjustment to his offense level because he entered a guilty plea and accepted full responsibility for his acts. “An adjustment ... for acceptance of responsibili…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw