Case: 19-13545 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-13545
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:18-cr-00468-TFM-SRW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LATRAIL MARCELLUS JACKSON, SR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(April 15, 2020)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-13545 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 2 of 5
The government charged the appellant Latrail Jackson with several drug and
firearm offenses. The drug charges included one count of possession with intent to
distribute cocaine hydrochloride, one count of possession with intent to distribute
marijuana, and one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
Jackson took his case to trial. He testified there that he possessed cocaine and
marijuana, but that he did not intend to distribute those drugs. He also denied flat
out that he possessed or intended to distribute methamphetamine. His latter
testimony conflicted with government evidence showing that a confidential
informant had bought methamphetamine from Jackson several times.
The jury convicted Jackson of the cocaine and marijuana charges, but it
acquitted him of the methamphetamine charge. At sentencing, Jackson sought a
two-point acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, given
that he purportedly admitted to the facts underlying the marijuana and cocaine
charges at trial. The district court did not apply the reduction; instead, it found by
a preponderance of the evidence that Jackson had in fact sold methamphetamine
and that his false testimony to the contrary made him ineligible for the acceptance-
of-responsibility reduction. The court then sentenced him to 210 months’
imprisonment. This is Jackson’s appeal. He claims that the district court erred in
denying the reduction.
2
Case: 19-13545 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 3 of 5
We review for clear error a district court’s decision not to apply a reduction
for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. United States v.
Moriarty,
429 F.3d 1012, 1022–23 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We will affirm
the district court’s decision unless the record clearly establishes that the defendant
has accepted responsibility.
Id.
The acceptance-of-responsibility provision warrants a two-level decrease in
the defendant’s offense level if “the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of
responsibility for his offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). District courts may consider,
among other things, whether the defendant truthfully admitted the conduct
comprising the offense of conviction.
Id. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(A)). They may
also consider whether the defendant truthfully admitted or did not falsely deny
“any additional relevant conduct for which the defendant is accountable.”
Id. A
defendant who exercises his right to trial and is convicted may clearly demonstrate
acceptance of responsibility “[i]n rare situations,” such as “where a defendant goes
to trial to assert and preserve issues that do not relate to factual guilt.”
Id. § 3E1.1,
comment. (n.2). The sentencing judge is best positioned to evaluate the
defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, and thus its determination is entitled to
great deference.
Id. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5).
“[A] jury’s verdict of acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from
considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has
3
Case: 19-13545 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 4 of 5
been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Watts,
519 U.S.
148, 157 (1997) (per curiam). “An acquittal on criminal charges does not prove
that the defendant is innocent; it merely proves the existence of a reasonable doubt
as to his guilt.” United States v. Campbell,
491 F.3d 1306, 1317 n.14 (11th Cir.
2007) (alteration accepted).
The district court did not clearly err in refusing to apply the reduction.
Though Jackson admitted to possessing marijuana and cocaine at trial, he disputed
the methamphetamine charge entirely. The government, in contrast, introduced
evidence that a confidential informant bought methamphetamine from Jackson
several times. The district court, in denying the reduction, was entitled to consider
this relevant acquitted conduct and credit the government’s evidence over
Jackson’s testimony. See
Watts, 519 U.S. at 157; U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment.
(n.1(A)). Given this evidence, the district court did not clearly err in concluding
that Jackson falsely testified about relevant acquitted conduct, and thus failed to
accept responsibility.
Along with this, Jackson has not shown that his partial admission of guilt at
trial qualifies him for the reduction. Though Jackson admitted to possessing
cocaine and marijuana, he stopped short of saying that he intended to distribute
those drugs. He thus forced the government to prove those facts. So there is no
indication that Jackson went to trial simply to “assert and preserve issues that do
4
Case: 19-13545 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 5 of 5
not relate to factual guilt.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.2). As a result, his is
not the “rare instance” in which a defendant can go to trial on the offense of
conviction yet still retain the ability to qualify for an acceptance-of-responsibility
reduction. See
id.
For these reasons, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in
refusing to apply a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See
Moriarty, 429
F.3d at 1022–23.
AFFIRMED.
5
