United States v. Samuel Castillo

Case: 11-11041 Document: 00512067836 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 29, 2012
No. 11-11041
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
SAMUEL CASTILLO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CR-74-1
Before JONES, DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Samuel Castillo appeals the 151-month sentence he received following his
guilty plea conviction for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Specifically, he challenges
the district court’s refusal to award him a three-level sentencing reduction for
acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Castillo asserts that
he timely pleaded guilty and that, although he moved to withdraw the plea, the
motion was based on bad advice from fellow inmates. He states that he
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 11-11041 Document: 00512067836 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2012
No. 11-11041
subsequently apologized and sought to rectify the error during debriefing and
that he was therefore entitled to the reduction.
The district court’s denial of a sentencing reduction for acceptance of
responsibility was not “without foundation.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte,
513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008). Castillo moved to withdraw his plea based on
his alleged confusion over the type of drug involved in his offense, which
confusion the district court found to be incredible, and which credibility finding
Castillo has never contested. Because Castillo falsely denied knowing that his
offense involved methamphetamine in an attempt to reduce his culpability, he
acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. See § 3E1.1,
comment. (n.3); United States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 648 (5th Cir.
2003); see also United States v. Angeles-Mendoza, 407 F.3d 742, 753 (5th Cir.
2005). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2