United States v. Martin ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40428
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAY MARTIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:98-CR-125-ALL
- - - - - - - - - -
January 23, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ray Martin pleaded guilty to theft of Government property, a
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, after he illegally harvested timber
on Government land. He now appeals his sentence. He argues that
the district court erred in denying him a three-level reduction
for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
Entry of a plea of guilty prior to the commencement of trial
combined with truthfully admitting the conduct comprising the
offense of conviction, and truthfully admitting or not falsely
denying any additional relevant conduct for which the defendant
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-40428
-2-
is accountable under § 1B1.3 constitutes significant evidence of
acceptance of responsibility. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3). However,
Martin did not admit that he stole timber from the Government,
nor did he admit the relevant conduct stemming from the illegally
harvested timber from property belonging to others. Martin was
denied the three-level reduction because he maintained that other
people he employed were responsible for the illegal harvest, and
he did not see his actions as criminal. He blamed others,
including the Government, for his incarceration, and while in
custody pending trial, he escaped. Conduct such as an escape,
which results in an enhancement under § 3C1.1 for obstruction of
justice (as it did in this case), generally indicates that the
defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal
conduct. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4); see United States v. Ayala, 47
F.3d 688, 690-91 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did not err
in refusing to award Martin a three-level adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility.
Martin argues that the district court erred in not
sustaining his objection to a two-level increase pursuant to
§ 2B1.1(b)(4)(A) for more than minimal planning. He contends
that the statement of Debra Shaw contained in the presentence
report (PSR), to which FBI Agent Ronayne testified at the
sentencing hearing and on which the court relied in assessing the
two-level increase, was not reliable. A district court has
discretion to adopt a PSR’s facts without more specific inquiry
or explanation if the defendant presents only general unsupported
objections to the report. See United States v. Gray, 105 F.3d
No. 00-40428
-3-
956, 969 (5th Cir. 1997). Martin made only unsupported
assertions that Shaw’s statement lacked credibility. A court may
rely on hearsay testimony from law enforcement officials at
sentencing hearings. See United States v. Gray, 105 F.3d 956,
969 (5th Cir. 1997).
Martin presented no evidence that either Agent Ronayne or
Shaw lacked credibility or that Shaw’s statements to Agent
Ronayne were in fact false. Moreover, Agent Ronayne’s testimony
pertained to only one of several tracts from which Martin
illegally cut timber. The district court did not clearly err in
assessing a two-level enhancement for more than minimal planning.
See United States v. McCord, 33 F.3d 1434, 1454 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.