United States v. Edison Achito Charo, A/K/A Charlie

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Edison Achito Charo, A/K/A Charlie

996 F.2d 1169, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 19899, 1993 WL 267412

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 1993

Docket92-6720

StatusPublished

This text of 996 F.2d 1169 (United States v. Edison Achito Charo, A/K/A Charlie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Edison Achito Charo, A/K/A Charlie, 996 F.2d 1169, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 19899, 1993 WL 267412 (11th Cir. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Charo appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and money laundering.

He maintains that the district court erred in refusing to grant him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(a). He contends that he manifested acceptance of responsibility by admitting his involvement in the offense, showing remorse, and cooperating with law enforcement officials. The Government responds that the district court’s finding that Charo had not accepted responsibility for the offense conduct was not clearly erroneous.

The sentencing court’s determination that a defendant is not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is entitled to great deference and will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. United States v. Spraggins, 868 F.2d 1641, 1643 (11th Cir.1989). Section 3El.l(a) requires a sentencing court to reduce the offense level by two levels “if the defendant clearly demonstrates a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct.” In determining whether defendant qualifies for an acceptance of responsibility *1170 adjustment, the sentencing court may consider whether the defendant made a “voluntary and truthful admission to authorities of involvement in the offense and related conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment, (n. 1(c)).

Charo pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and one count of money laundering. At the change of plea hearing, he admitted that from June through October of 1981, he transported cocaine base from Houston, Texas to Mobile, Alabama on several occasions. He further admitted that he transported approximately one-half a kilogram at a time. Charo told the probation officer that he transported approximately one and one-half kilograms of cocaine base on four occasions. Thus, the probation officer estimated that he transported four kilograms of cocaine base. At sentencing, he admitted to transporting a total of one and one-half kilograms of cocaine base. Charo’s statement was not a truthful admission and did not show a clear acceptance of responsibility. The court, therefore, did not err in declining to grant a two-level reduction.

The sentence and judgment are AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Charo appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and money laundering.

He maintains that the district court erred in refusing to grant him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(a). He contends that he manifested acceptance of responsibility by admitting his involvement in the offense, showing remorse, and cooperating with law enforcement officials. The Government responds that the district court’s finding that Charo had not accepted responsibility for the offense conduct was not clearly erroneous.

The sentencing court’s determination that a defendant is not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is entitled to great deference and will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. United States v. Spraggins, 868 F.2d 1641, 1643 (11th Cir.1989). Section 3El.l(a) requires a sentencing court to reduce the offense level by two levels “if the defendant clearly demonstrates a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct.” In determining whether defendant qualifies for an acceptance of responsibility *1170 adjustment, the sentencing court may consider whether the defendant made a “voluntary and truthful admission to authorities of involvement in the offense and related conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment, (n. 1(c)).

Charo pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and one count of money laundering. At the change of plea hearing, he admitted that from June through October of 1981, he transported cocaine base from Houston, Texas to Mobile, Alabama on several occasions. He further admitted that he transported approximately one-half a kilogram at a time. Charo told the probation officer that he transported approximately one and one-half kilograms of cocaine base on four occasions. Thus, the probation officer estimated that he transported four kilograms of cocaine base. At sentencing, he admitted to transporting a total of one and one-half kilograms of cocaine base. Charo’s statement was not a truthful admission and did not show a clear acceptance of responsibility. The court, therefore, did not err in declining to grant a two-level reduction.

The sentence and judgment are AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

996 F.2d 1169, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 19899, 1993 WL 267412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-edison-achito-charo-aka-charlie-ca11-1993.