United States v. Mack Hinojosa ( 2020 )

Case: 19-41063 Document: 00515545219 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 28, 2020
No. 19-41063 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Mack Hinojosa,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:19-CR-669-1
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Mack Hinojosa appeals the 84-month sentence imposed following his
guilty plea conviction for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a
convicted felon. He argues that the district court erred by denying his request
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-41063 Document: 00515545219 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/28/2020
No. 19-41063
for a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(a)–
(b) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
We review a district court’s refusal to grant an offense-level reduction
for acceptance of responsibility “with even greater deference” than clear
error review. United States v. Buchanan, 485 F.3d 274, 287 (5th Cir. 2007).
This Court will not reverse a denial of a reduction under § 3E1.1 unless the
decision is “without foundation.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d
204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In determining whether a reduction under § 3E1.1 applies, the district
court may consider the defendant’s “voluntary termination or withdrawal
from criminal conduct or associations.” U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(B) (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n
2018); cf. United States v. Watkins, 911 F.2d 983, 985 (5th Cir. 1990). Here,
the district court’s denial of a § 3E1.1 reduction was not without foundation
because it was based on the district court’s finding that, after his guilty plea
and while in custody, Hinojosa engaged in conduct in violation of the law and
prison rules when he struck, or attempted to strike, a correctional officer. See
Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 208, 211.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2