United States v. Stone

No. 99-10871
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10871
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BARBARA STONE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:99-CR-26-01-C
--------------------
May 3, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Barbara Stone challenges her sentence from her guilty-plea
conviction for theft of government property. She challenges the
district court’s ruling concerning acceptance of responsibility.
See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).
Stone argues that the district court, in declining to adjust
her sentence for acceptance of responsibility, erroneously
applied a per se approach, specifically, that a violation of the
conditions for pretrial release automatically disentitles a
defendant from the two-level adjustment. Her argument is
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-10871
-2-
unpersuasive. Our review of the sentencing hearing does not lead
to the same characterization of the court’s ruling as that which
Stone contends.
Stone also argues that the court failed to make a finding
that her violations of her bond conditions were willful
violations. Her argument is at odds with the burden placed on
the defendant to demonstrate clearly acceptance of
responsibility. See United States v. Thomas, 120 F.3d 564, 574-
75 (5th Cir. 1997); § 3E1.1(a). The district court found that
Stone was not entitled to the adjustment, and that finding is not
without foundation. See United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515,
525 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Hooten, 942 F.2d 878, 883
(5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.