United States v. Hall ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41089
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NARCOTT DEXTER HALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:98-CR-20-1
- - - - - - - - - -
June 16, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Narcott Dexter Hall appeals his sentence following his
guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute
cocaine base. He argues that the district court clearly erred by
failing to apply the downward adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 to his sentence. We
review the district court’s finding regarding acceptance of
responsibility for clear error. United States v. Wilder, 15 F.3d
1292, 1298 (5th Cir. 1994).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-41089
-2-
The record indicates that Hall denied essential elements of
the charged offense during a presentence investigation interview.
Hall specifically stated that he was unaware that the package he
received from his codefendant contained crack cocaine. The
district court did not commit error, clear or otherwise, by
denying Hall a downward adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility. See § 3E1.1 comment. (n.1(a)); see also United
States v. Harlan, 35 F.3d 176, 181 (5th Cir. 1994)(“A defendant's
refusal to acknowledge essential elements of an offense is
incongruous with the guideline's commentary that truthful
admission of the conduct comprising an offense is relevant in
determining whether a defendant qualifies for this reduction.”)
This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because it
is frivolous, it is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Defense
counsel is warned that pursuing frivolous appeals invites
sanctions. See United States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th
Cir. 1994).
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.