United States v. Smith

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30336
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRANDON J. SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CR-50076-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Brandon J. Smith pleaded guilty to an indictment charging
him for being a felon in possession of a firearm and was
sentenced to a 41-month term of imprisonment and to a three-year
period of supervised release. The district court overruled
Smith’s objection to the probation officer’s recommendation that
an adjustment in offense level for acceptance of responsibility
be denied because Smith had denied falsely the offense conduct.
To obtain a two-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility, a defendant must clearly demonstrate acceptance
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-30336
-2-
of responsibility for his offense. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a); United
States v. Lghodaro, 967 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1992). The
defendant must truthfully admit the conduct comprising the
offense of conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1., comment. (n.1(a)).
This court reviews a district court’s finding on acceptance of
responsibility “under a standard of review even more deferential
than a pure clearly erroneous standard.” United States v.
Gonzales, 19 F.3d 982, 983 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal citation and
quotation omitted).
Smith argues that he admitted his involvement in the offense
at the change-of-plea hearing and at the sentencing hearing and
that the district court gave too much weight to Smith’s false
statements during his interview with the probation officer.
Smith contends that he was merely exercising his constitutional
right against self-incrimination and that he should not be
punished because he believed naively that he could still proceed
to trial after pleading guilty.
The adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is in the
nature of a reward, not a punishment, and does not unduly burden
constitutional privileges. See United States v. Mourning, 914
F.2d 699, 707 (5th Cir. 1990). The district court did not
clearly err in giving weight to the false statements made by
Smith to the probation officer. Under the deferential standard
applicable to the district court’s ruling, there is no basis for
reversal. The judgment is AFFIRMED.