United States v. May ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40110
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BARRY MAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:99-CR-32-1
--------------------
October 18, 2000
Before SMITH, and BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Barry May appeals his sentence following a guilty-plea
conviction for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent
to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
May argues that the district court erred by denying him an
offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
This court reviews a district court’s refusal to credit a
defendant’s acceptance of responsibility “with even more
deference than the pure ‘clearly erroneous’ standard.” United
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-40110
-2-
States v. Flucas, 99 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 1996); § 3E1.1,
comment. (n.5). Conduct that results in an offense-level
enhancement under § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice "ordinarily
indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for
his criminal conduct," except in "extraordinary cases in which
adjustments under both §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1 may apply." § 3E1.1,
comment. (n.4).
May’s conduct does not support a finding that this is an
extraordinary case in which both adjustments would be
appropriate. See United States v. Ayala, 47 F.3d 688, 691 (5th
Cir. 1995) (holding defendant’s subsequent cooperation and entry
of guilty plea after flight from custody, constituting
obstruction of justice, did not present an extraordinary case).
Furthermore, May’s arguments that he accepted responsibility are
foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Rickett, 89 F.3d
224, 227-28 (5th Cir. 1996), wherein we rejected the same
arguments May now asserts.
Based on the foregoing, the district court did not err and
its judgment is
AFFIRMED.