United States v. Dillon

Case: 22-10700 Document: 00516658730 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10700
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ February 28, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Sarah Dillon,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:21-CR-200-2
______________________________
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Sarah Dillon pleaded guilty to three counts of possession of stolen mail
and received concurrent, within-guidelines sentences of 21 months. On
appeal, she challenges the district court’s denial of a sentencing adjustment
for acceptance of responsibility. Finding no error, we AFFIRM.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10700 Document: 00516658730 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2023
No. 22-10700
Section 3E1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two-level
reduction in the offense level if the defendant “clearly demonstrates
acceptance of responsibility for [her] offense.” § 3E1.1(a). The defendant
must establish that the reduction is warranted. United States v. Flucas, 99
F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 1996). Although a guilty plea constitutes “significant
evidence” of a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, it does not
automatically entitle her to a two-level reduction, and “this evidence may be
outweighed by conduct of the defendant that is inconsistent with such
acceptance of responsibility.” § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3); see Flucas, 99 F.3d at
180.
This court reviews the district court’s interpretation and application
of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error.
United States v. Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d 407, 410 (5th Cir. 2020).
Because the sentencing court is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant’s
acceptance of responsibility, this court affords great deference to the district
court’s determination and will “affirm the denial of a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility unless it is without foundation, a standard of
review more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard.” United States
v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1017 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted); see also § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5).
It is not reversible error for the district court to deny a § 3E1.1(a)
reduction where the defendant failed to comply with conditions of her
pretrial release and engaged in post-arrest criminal conduct. See United
States v. Hooten, 942 F.2d 878, 882-83 (5th Cir. 1991); Hinojosa-Almance, 977
F.3d at 411; Flucas, 99 F.3d at 180. It is undisputed that Dillon violated her
pretrial release conditions by failing to comply with substance abuse
treatment, failing to attend counseling sessions, failing to submit to
urinalyses, failing to report to probation, and by using drugs while on pretrial
release. Accordingly, the district court’s determination that Dillon was not
2
Case: 22-10700 Document: 00516658730 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/28/2023
No. 22-10700
entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was not without
foundation. See Lord, 915 F.3d at 1017; Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d at 411.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3