United States v. Jeffrey Sykes , 559 F. App'x 331 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-10522 Document: 00512558799 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 13-10522 FILED
Summary Calendar March 12, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JEFFREY J. SYKES,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:12-CR-257-1
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jeffrey J. Sykes appeals his two, consecutive 60-month sentences
(totaling 120 months of imprisonment) that he received for his convictions of
two counts of securities fraud.
As Sykes failed to argue below that the district court coerced him into
withdrawing certain objections to the presentence report, we review his
coercion argument for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389,
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-10522 Document: 00512558799 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2014
No. 13-10522
391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). To show plain error, the appellant must show a
forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights.
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If the appellant makes such
a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it
seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. Id. As Sykes shows neither clear or obvious error by the district
court nor that his substantial rights were affected by the alleged coercion, he
fails to make the necessary showing. See id.
This court reviews a district court's denial of a reduction for acceptance
of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 under a standard that is even
more deferential than the pure clearly erroneous standard. United States v.
Washington, 340 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir.2003). “The ruling should not be
disturbed unless it is without foundation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). However, even if we were to find that the district court erred
by denying the adjustment, any such error would be harmless because the
Government has shown that the district court would have imposed the same
sentence even had the § 3E1.1 adjustment been granted. See United States v.
Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 753 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Duhon,
541 F.3d 391, 396 (5th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
2