UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4737
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA LACY HALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00299-WLO)
Submitted: January 30, 2009 Decided: February 17, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY JOHNSON BLACKMON LEE & LAWSON, LLP,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner,
United States Attorney, David P. Folmar, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Lacy Hall appeals the 140-month sentence he
received following his guilty plea to one count of conspiring to
manufacture 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). Hall’s sole
contention on appeal is that the district court erred in not
awarding him a reduction for his acceptance of responsibility,
as authorized by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 3E1.1 (2006). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
We review a sentencing court’s decision to grant or
deny a reduction for the defendant’s acceptance of
responsibility for clear error. United States v. Kise, 369 F.3d
766, 771 (4th Cir. 2004); United States v. May, 359 F.3d 683,
688 (4th Cir. 2004). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when
although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on
the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.
Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States
v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). We accord the
district court’s decision to grant or deny an acceptance of
responsibility reduction great deference. Id. (citing USSG
§ 3E1.1, cmt. n.5 (2005)).
Pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1, a defendant may be given a
two- or three-level reduction in his offense level if he clearly
2
demonstrates that he has accepted responsibility for the
offense. In order to receive such a reduction, “the defendant
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he has
clearly recognized and affirmatively accepted personal
responsibility for his criminal conduct.” May, 359 F.3d at 693
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Hall maintains he was eligible for the reduction by
virtue of his guilty plea, despite the fact that, after pleading
guilty, he informed the probation officer that he wished to
withdraw his guilty plea and that he was not involved in selling
or manufacturing methamphetamine. Hall’s argument fails. A
guilty plea reflects some level of acceptance of responsibility,
but does not automatically entitle a defendant to the reduction.
USSG § 3E1.1, cmt. n.3; May, 359 F.3d at 693. Application Note
3 to § 3E1.1 clearly establishes that it is a guilty plea
“combined with truthfully admitting the conduct comprising the
offense of conviction” that is “significant evidence of
acceptance of responsibility.”
Although Hall did admit his illegal conduct at the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, his statements to the probation
officer denying his involvement in the conspiracy and indicating
his desire to withdraw his guilty plea negated the impact of
that admission. Application Note 3 establishes that a guilty
plea “may be outweighed by conduct . . . that is inconsistent
3
with such acceptance of responsibility.” USSG § 3E1.1, cmt.
n.3. That is the case here, as Hall’s post-admission
recantation of his guilt and his denial of his role in the
charged offense is clearly inconsistent with accepting
responsibility. See May, 359 F.3d at 693-95 (finding district
court erred in permitting reduction when presentence report
indicated, inter alia, that defendant denied the facts
underlying the offense). Although Hall attempted to minimize
the significance of his statements at sentencing by averring
that he “accept[ed] responsibility for the amount that me and
the Government have agreed to” and offering a statement
accepting responsibility, these efforts were insufficient to
demonstrate acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, we
conclude the district court did not clearly err in declining to
grant the reduction.
For the foregoing reasons, we reject Hall’s argument
on appeal and affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4