United States v. Oshea St. John ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Case: 19-11301     Document: 00515567402         Page: 1     Date Filed: 09/16/2020
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    September 16, 2020
    No. 19-11301                          Lyle W. Cayce
    Summary Calendar                             Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Oshea Jaron St. John,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:19-CR-206-1
    Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Oshea Jaron St. John pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
    commit access device fraud and was sentenced to 24 months of
    imprisonment. In his sole issue on appeal, he challenges the district court’s
    *
    Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-11301      Document: 00515567402          Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/16/2020
    No. 19-11301
    denial of a reduction to his offense level for acceptance of responsibility
    pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. For the following reasons, we affirm.
    Denial of a § 3E1.1(a) reduction for acceptance of responsibility is
    “reviewed with particular deference” and will not be reversed “unless it is
    without foundation, a standard of review more deferential than the clearly
    erroneous standard.” United States v. Lord, 
    915 F.3d 1009
    , 1017 (5th Cir.),
    cert. denied, 
    140 S. Ct. 320
     (2019) (internal quotation marks and citation
    omitted). On that standard of review, we conclude that the district court did
    not err in denying a § 3E1.1 reduction based on its determination that St. John
    falsely denied or frivolously contested relevant conduct in his objections to
    the presentence report, which contradicted facts he had admitted under oath
    in connection with his guilty plea. See Lord, 915 F.3d at 1017, 1020; § 3E1.1
    comment. (n.1(A)). We are unpersuaded by St. John’s arguments that the
    district court was required to ignore those objections or to construe them as
    consistent with his acceptance of responsibility.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-11301

Filed Date: 9/16/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/17/2020