United States v. Johnson ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50851 Document: 00516738934 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50851
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ May 4, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jaden Rene Johnson,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:22-CR-80-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Defendant-Appellant Jaden Rene Johnson pleaded guilty to
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Johnson was sentenced to forty-one months
imprisonment and three years supervised release. He appeals the district
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50851 Document: 00516738934 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
No. 22-50851
court’s refusal to apply an offense level reduction based on acceptance of
responsibility. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM.
After Johnson was indicted and before he pled guilty, he assaulted
another detainee in a detention facility. When computing Johnson’s offense
level, the probation officer did not apply a decrease for acceptance of
responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 because of that assault. Johnson
submitted objections to the presentencing report (“PSR”), in which he took
issue with the lack of reduction in his offense level. The district court adopted
all of the findings in the PSR and declined to apply a reduction for acceptance
of responsibility, imposing a within-guidelines sentence of forty-one months
imprisonment. Johnson claims that the district court erred by denying him an
offense level decrease for acceptance of responsibility.
We review a district court’s interpretation or application of the
Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United
States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008). However, the
district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility will be
affirmed unless the decision was “without foundation.” Id. at 211. This
standard of review is “more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard.”
United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 525 (5th Cir. 1999).
Here, the district court did not err in refusing to grant a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility. While in detention pending the disposition of
his case, Johnson assaulted another detainee. The district court properly
considered that incident in determining whether Johnson was eligible for a
reduction because the Sentencing Guidelines direct district courts to
consider whether “the defendant withdrew from criminal conduct after
being charged in the pending offense.” United States v. Franks, 46 F.3d 402,
406 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (citing § 3E1.1, comment n.1(B)). Whether
Johnson’s conduct was related to the charged offense of possession of a
2
Case: 22-50851 Document: 00516738934 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
No. 22-50851
firearm by a convicted felon is irrelevant because “[a] district court may also
consider any violation of the defendant's pretrial release conditions.” United
States v. Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2020) (emphasis
added); see also United States v. Watkins, 911 F.2d 983, 985 (5th Cir. 1990)
(holding that “acceptance of responsibility includes refraining from any
violations of the law”).
Because Johnson engaged in criminal conduct after being charged with
the instant offense, the district court’s denial of a reduction was not without
foundation. The sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED.
3