United States v. Purcell ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-20464
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    PAUL PURCELL,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-01-CR-809-1
    --------------------
    February 20, 2003
    Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Paul Purcell challenges the district court’s denial of a
    U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
    Purcell entered a guilty plea to a charge of being a felon in
    possession of a firearm.    The district court sentenced him to
    100 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
    Purcell contends that he timely and willingly accepted
    responsibility for the instant offense.    He asserts that the
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-20464
    -2-
    U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 determination whether a defendant accepted
    responsibility should be limited to the offense of conviction
    and to conduct related to the offense of conviction.   Purcell
    concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our opinion in United
    States v. Watkins, 
    911 F.2d 983
    , 985 (5th Cir. 1990), and that he
    raises the issue only to preserve it for Supreme Court review.
    In Watkins, we rejected the precise argument that Purcell
    now asserts and held that the application note to U.S.S.G.
    § 3E1.1 was “phrased in general terms and does not specify that
    the defendant need only refrain from criminal conduct associated
    with the offense of conviction in order to qualify for the
    reduction.”   
    911 F.2d at 985
    .   Absent en banc reconsideration or
    a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court, one panel
    may not overrule the decision of a prior panel.    United States v.
    Ruff, 
    984 F.2d 635
    , 640 (5th Cir. 1993).   Accordingly, the
    judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-20464

Filed Date: 2/21/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014