Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
19-11301•United States v. St. John
19-11301Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit16.09.2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
No. 19-11301
Summary Calendar
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Oshea Jaron St. John,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-206-1
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Oshea Jaron St. John pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
commit access device fraud and was sentenced to 24 months of
imprisonment. In his sole issue on appeal, he challenges the district court’s
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 16, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-11301 Document: 00515567402 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/2020
No. 19-11301
2
denial of a reduction to his offense level for acceptance of responsibility
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Denial of a § 3E1.1(a) reduction for acceptance of responsibility is
“reviewed with particular deference” and will not be reversed “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.),
cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 320 (2019) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). On that standard of review, we conclude that the district court did
not err in denying a § 3E1.1 reduction based on its determination that St. John
falsely denied or frivolously contested relevant conduct in his objections to
the presentence report, which contradicted facts he had admitted under oath
in connection with his guilty plea. See Lord, 915 F.3d at 1017, 1020; § 3E1.1
comment. (n.1(A)). We are unpersuaded by St. John’s arguments that the
district court was required to ignore those objections or to construe them as
consistent with his acceptance of responsibility.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-11301 Document: 00515567402 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/16/2020
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.