United States v. Kevin Michael Tilcock

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-12755 MAY 9, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 4:10-cr-00080-RH-WCS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KEVIN MICHAEL TILCOCK,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(May 9, 2012)
Before CARNES, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Tilcock appeals his sentence of 135 months of imprisonment for
conspiring to distribute oxycodone, methadone, and alprazolam, 21 U.S.C. § 846,
possessing those illegal drugs with intent to distribute, id. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C),
and distributing oxycodone, id. Tilcock challenges the enhancement of his
sentence for obstructing justice, United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual §
3C1.1 (Nov. 2010), and the denial of his request to reduce his sentence for
accepting responsibility by pleading guilty, id. § 3E1.1. We affirm.
We review the interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines
de novo and related findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Doe, 661 F.3d
550, 565 (11th Cir. 2011) (obstruction of justice); United States v. Gupta, 572
F.3d 878, 887 (11th Cir. 2009) (acceptance of responsibility). The finding that a
defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct is “‘entitled to
great deference on review and should not be disturbed unless it is without
foundation.’” United States v. Knight, 562 F.3d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir. 2009)
(quoting United States v. Davis, 878 F.2d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 1989)).
The district court did not err when it enhanced Tilcock’s sentence for
obstructing justice nor when it denied his request for a reduction of his sentence
for acceptance of responsibility. During a pre-sentence hearing, Tilcock testified
2
that he had identified Jacob Mason as the person who had made the undercover
purchases that led to the charges against him. Tilcock admitted that he had called
Mason and had said “If you’re still living in Tallahassee, I’ll find you and beat
your ass”; “I’ll come after that whore of yours too”; and “I’ve got a pistol waiting
too.” Mason testified that he also had received text messages from Tilcock that
stated, “When I see you, I’ll get you.” The district court did not clearly err in
finding that Tilcock had intended to threaten Mason, see id. § 3C1.1 cmt n.4(A),
and that Tilcock “ha[d] not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct,” id. §
3E1.1 cmt. n.4.
We AFFIRM Tilcock’s sentence.
3