IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 96-11462
Summary Calendar
_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHANE MICHAEL HACKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
----------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:96-CR-33-1
----------
May 23, 1997
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shane Michael Hacker pleaded guilty to one count of theft from a bank in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b). In sentencing, the district court denied Hacker
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in
Local Rule 47.5.4.
a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility because he violated
his conditions of release, specifically the prohibition against committing any
criminal offense and the excessive use of alcohol while on release. In United
States v. Watkins,1 we held that the district court’s denial of a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility was not an abuse of discretion when the defendant
used cocaine while on release pending sentencing. The court reached a similar
result in United States v. Flucas.2
Hacker asserts that his prior violation of law, misdemeanor assault, was
completely unrelated to the charged offense of theft from a bank, and was so petty
in nature that it should not preclude a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
We have held that the application notes to the guidelines addressing withdrawal
from criminal activity are written in general, not specific terms, and thus do "not
specify that the defendant need only refrain from criminal conduct associated with
the offense of conviction in order to qualify for the reduction."3 Hacker cites
United States v. Morrison4 to support his contention. In Flucas we noted Morrison
1
911 F.2d 983 (5th Cir. 1990).
2
99 F.3d 177 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1097 (1997) (noting the decisions
of the other circuits on this point).
3
Watkins at 985.
4
983 F.2d 730 (6th Cir. 1993).
2
but did not adopt the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning. Hacker has not shown that the
denial was clear error.
AFFIRMED.
3