United States v. Jaquon McKnight ( 2020 )

Case: 19-11069 Document: 00515412688 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 19-11069
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar May 12, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JAQUON MCKNIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-107-1
Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jaquon McKnight pleaded guilty to conspiracy to pass and utter
counterfeit currency. He now appeals his 18-month sentence on grounds that
the district court erred in declining to apply an offense-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).
This court will affirm the denial of an acceptance of responsibility
reduction unless it is without foundation, a standard of review that is more
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-11069 Document: 00515412688 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
No. 19-11069
deferential than the clearly erroneous standard. See United States
v. Ragsdale, 426 F.3d 765, 781 (5th Cir. 2005). A defendant may receive a two-
point reduction in offense level if he “clearly demonstrates acceptance of
responsibility for his offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). Although a guilty plea is
“significant evidence” of a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, it does not
automatically entitle him to a reduction. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3).
The district court may properly deny a reduction if the defendant fails to
comply with the conditions of his pretrial release. See United States v. Rickett,
89 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir. 1996). McKnight violated the terms of his pretrial
release by testing positive for marijuana use and by using an adulterant that
obstructed the efficacy of his drug screenings. The district court’s decision to
deny a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was therefore not without
foundation.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2