United States v. Cory Disotell ( 2020 )

Case: 20-30043 Document: 00515590969 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 6, 2020
No. 20-30043 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Cory Shane Disotell,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:19-CR-126-1
Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Cory Shane Disotell appeals the 262-month sentence he received
following his guilty plea conviction for transporting a minor with the intent
to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). He
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-30043 Document: 00515590969 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2020
No. 20-30043
argues that the district court erred in denying him a two-point reduction for
acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).
“While the district court’s findings under the sentencing guidelines
are generally reviewed for clear error,” a determination of whether a
defendant is entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under §
3E1.1 is reviewed “with even greater deference.” United States v. Buchanan,
485 F.3d 274, 287 (5th Cir. 2007). Under this standard, we will affirm the
district court’s decision to deny a defendant a reduction for acceptance of
responsibility unless that decision is “without foundation.” United States
v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v.
Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 525 (5th Cir. 1999)).
Disotell has not shown that the district court’s refusal to award him a
two-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction was without foundation
when both his presentencing letter to the court and allocution at sentencing
attempted to minimize his role in the offense, shifted blame to the underage
victim of his crime, and sought to mitigate his own conduct by falsely denying
relevant underlying facts. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.3; Juarez-Duarte, 513
F.3d at 211; see also United States v. Angeles-Mendoza, 407 F.3d 742, 753 (5th
Cir. 2005); United States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 647-48 (5th Cir.
2003). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2