United States v. Jaquon McKnight

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 12, 2020
• Docket: 19-11069
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-11069 Document: 00515412688 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals

No. 19-11069 Fifth Circuit

FILED Summary Calendar May 12, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAQUON MCKNIGHT,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CR-107-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jaquon McKnight pleaded guilty to conspiracy to pass and utter counterfeit currency. He now appeals his 18-month sentence on grounds that the district court erred in declining to apply an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). This court will affirm the denial of an acceptance of responsibility reduction unless it is without foundation, a standard of review that is more

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 19-11069 Document: 00515412688 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2020

No. 19-11069

deferential than the clearly erroneous standard. See United States v. Ragsdale, 426 F.3d 765, 781 (5th Cir. 2005). A defendant may receive a two- point reduction in offense level if he “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). Although a guilty plea is “significant evidence” of a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, it does not automatically entitle him to a reduction. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3). The district court may properly deny a reduction if the defendant fails to comply with the conditions of his pretrial release. See United States v. Rickett, 89 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir. 1996). McKnight violated the terms of his pretrial release by testing positive for marijuana use and by using an adulterant that obstructed the efficacy of his drug screenings. The district court’s decision to deny a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was therefore not without foundation. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.