United States v. Ayala

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 19, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40428
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SERGIO GUADALUPE AYALA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CR-1624-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sergio Guadalupe Ayala appeals the sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for illegally transporting
an alien within the United States. Ayala argues that the
district court erred by denying him a downward adjustment based
on acceptance of responsibility.
To qualify for a downward adjustment based on acceptance of
responsibility, the defendant must clearly demonstrate acceptance
of responsibility for his offense. United States v. Pierce,
237 F.3d 693, 694 (5th Cir. 2001); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-40428
-2-
Considerations include whether the defendant truthfully admitted
or did not falsely deny any additional relevant conduct for which
he is accountable under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. Pierce, 237 F.3d at
695. In reviewing a sentencing court’s determination of
acceptance of responsibility, this court gives “more deference to
the finding than would be given under a clearly erroneous
standard.” Id.The district court did not deny Ayala an acceptance-of-
responsibility reduction because Ayala raised a Sixth Amendment
challenge to the for-profit determination. Rather, the court
determined that Ayala had falsely denied relevant conduct for
which he was accountable, namely the commission of the offense
for profit. Ayala’s argument that he should not have been denied
the adjustment based on his Sixth Amendment argument is thus
without merit.
Ayala’s argument that he did not personally profit from the
offense and thus could not have been denied the reduction is
likewise without merit. The record supports the determination
that Ayala was going to personally profit from the offense.
Ayala thus falsely denied relevant conduct for which he was
accountable under § 1B1.3. See Pierce, 237 F.3d at 695.
AFFIRMED.