United States v. Michael Mason

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4558

MICHAEL MASON, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-98-236)

Submitted: May 16, 2000

Decided: June 5, 2000

Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Stephen L. Shelnutt, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Vincent J. Falvo, Jr., Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Michael Mason appeals from seventy-seven months sentence for assault with a deadly weapon, 18 U.S.C.A. § 113(a)(3) (West Supp. 1999), and prisoner possession of a shank, 18 U.S.C.A. § 13 (West Supp. 1999), assimilating Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-203(4) (Michie 1998). Mason argues that the district court erred in failing to award Mason a reduction in offense level based upon acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (1998).

This Court reviews a district court's decision to deny an acceptance of responsibility adjustment for clear error. See United States v. Holt, 79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir. 1996). To receive a reduction under USSG § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he has clearly recognized and affirmatively accepted personal responsibility for his criminal conduct . See United States v. Martinez, 901 F.2d 374, 377 (4th Cir. 1990). The timeliness of a defendant's indication of responsibility is a factor the court may consider in deciding whether the adjustment is appropriate. See USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(h)). The district court is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant's acceptance of responsibility , and its determination is entitled to great deference on review. USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5); United States v. White, 875 F.2d 427, 430-31 (4th Cir. 1989).

We have reviewed the briefs and the materials submitted in the joint appendix and find no clear error in the district court's decision to deny Mason a reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility . Accordingly, we affirm Mason's sentence.

AFFIRMED