United States v. Godina

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40220
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBERTO GODINA,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-00-CR-1229-ALL
--------------------
December 11, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roberto Godina pleaded guilty to possessing less than fifty
kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute after United
States customs officials at a border checkpoint discovered
marijuana hidden in the automobile he was driving. The district
court sentenced Godina to a term of 21 months’ imprisonment,
followed by a three-year term of supervised release.
Godina argues that his sentence is excessive because the
district court erroneously denied him a three-level reduction in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40220
-2-
offense level for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
The defendant has the burden of demonstrating that he is
entitled to a reduction under § 3E1.1. United States v. Bermea,
30 F.3d 1539, 1577 (5th Cir. 1994). Whether a defendant clearly
demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility is a question of
fact. United States v. Perez, 915 F.2d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1990).
Because the district court is uniquely qualified to evaluate
whether the defendant has accepted responsibility, this court
reviews such a determination with even more deference than would
be given to a finding under a “clearly erroneous” standard. See
United States v. Nguyen, 190 F.3d 656, 659 (5th Cir. 1999). A
denial of acceptance of responsibility will be affirmed unless
the district court’s finding is “without foundation.” United
States v. Brace, 145 F.3d 247, 264 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc).
The district court denied the reduction for acceptance of
responsibility because it did not believe that Godina had
provided complete information concerning his involvement in the
offense. A defendant’s refusal to identify the persons who hired
him to transport drugs or to explain his financial arrangements
with his employers will support the denial of a reduction in
offense level for acceptance of responsibility. United States v.
Tellez, 882 F.2d 141, 143 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v.
Barreto, 871 F.2d 511, 513 (5th Cir. 1989).
AFFIRMED.