United States v. Hall

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-4502
CLAUDE ROGER HALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Elizabeth V. Hallanan, District Judge.
(CR-96-61)
Submitted: April 17, 1997
Decided: May 1, 1997
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
R. Thomas Czarnik, Princeton, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca
A. Betts, United States Attorney, Margaret A. Hickey, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Claude Roger Hall pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a
weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (1994). On
appeal, he alleges that the district court erred in sentencing by failing
to grant him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility by two or
three levels under the sentencing guidelines. USSG§ 3E1.1.* For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
A defendant who demonstrates affirmative acceptance of responsi-
bility for his criminal conduct may have his offense level reduced by
two or three levels, but he must demonstrate that he is entitled to the
adjustment by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v.
Harris, 882 F.2d 902, 907 (4th Cir. 1989). A guilty plea does not
automatically entitle the defendant to a reduction for acceptance of
responsibility. Id. at 905-06. Mere acceptance of the fact of convic-
tion is not acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Harriott,
976 F.2d 198, 202 (4th Cir. 1992). Rather, to earn a reduction, the
defendant must show acceptance of responsibility for all his criminal
conduct, not just for the counts of conviction to which he pled guilty.
See United States v. Gordon, 895 F.2d 932, 936 (4th Cir. 1990). The
defendant need not admit to relevant conduct outside count of convic-
tion, but may not falsely deny or frivolously contest relevant conduct
which a district court finds true. USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(a)).
The district court has great discretion in applying the adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility and whether the reduction is warranted
is a factual issue not to be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. See
United States v. Curtis, 934 F.2d 553, 557 (4th Cir. 1991).
The district court's grounds for denying Hall a downward adjust-
ment were twofold. First, Hall continued to deny that he knew that it
was illegal for him to possess a firearm, notwithstanding his state
parole officer's admonitions to the contrary. Second, the incident
which led to his arrest revealed that Hall took a child hostage and
fired seven shots at police, with one bullet hitting a squad car's wind-
_________________________________________________________________
*United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual ("USSG")
(Nov. 1995).
2
shield. Nonetheless, Hall maintained that he never intended to shoot
the police officers nor aimed a firearm at them. Thus, we do not find
that the district court clearly erred by denying Hall an adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, we affirm his sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3