IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-41362
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAUL CAMARON DOHERTY,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:97-CR-39-ALL
- - - - - - - - - -
June 17, 1998
Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paul Camaron Doherty pleaded guilty to possession with
intent to deliver amphetamine and has appealed his sentence.
Doherty contends that the district court erred in refusing to
adjust his offense level for acceptance of responsibility because
Doherty continued to engage in criminal conduct while on pretrial
release. “The district court may properly deny a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility for failure to refrain from criminal
conduct while on pretrial release.” United States v. Rickett,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 97-41362
-2-
89 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 499 (1996).
This court reviews a district court’s finding on acceptance of
responsibility for clear error but “under a standard of review
even more deferential than a pure clearly erroneous standard.”
United States v. Gonzales, 19 F.3d 982, 983 (5th Cir. 1994)
(internal citation and quotation omitted).
Doherty argues that the district court did not determine as
a factual matter that the alleged illegal conduct occurred while
he was on pretrial release. Doherty bore the burden of showing
that he was entitled to an adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility. United States v. Kinder, 946 F.2d 362, 367 (5th
Cir. 1991). At no time, did Doherty attempt to show that the
alleged criminal conduct occurred at a time prior to his release
on bond. Moreover, in his order revoking Doherty’s bond, the
magistrate judge found that the criminal conduct had occurred
after Doherty entered his guilty plea in the instant action.
Doherty contends that the district court’s finding that
Doherty had not withdrawn from criminal conduct following entry
of his guilty plea was not supported by sufficient evidence. The
district court adopted the findings of the probation officer in
the presentence investigation report. “For sentencing purposes,
the district court [could] consider any relevant evidence
‘without regard to its admissibility under the rules of evidence
applicable at trial, provided that the information [had]
sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable
No. 97-41362
-3-
accuracy.’” United States v. Young, 981 F.2d 180, 185 (5th Cir.
1992). “[A] presentence report generally bears sufficient
indicia of reliability to be considered as evidence by the trial
court in making the factual determinations required by the
Guidelines.” United States v. Robins, 978 F.2d 881, 889 (5th
Cir. 1992). The judgment is
AFFIRMED.