UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4756
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARKIS RASAAN ALLEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:13-cr-00004-BO-1)
Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne Buchanan Eads, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Yvonne Watford-McKinney, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Markis Rasaan Allen appeals the 120-month sentence
imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2012). On appeal, Allen contends that
the district court erred in rejecting a three-level downward
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. * Finding no error,
we affirm.
Whether a defendant deserves a downward adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility is a factual issue that we review
only for clear error. United States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236,
239 (4th Cir. 2007). Because the sentencing judge “is in a
unique position to evaluate a defendant’s acceptance of
responsibility,” the sentencing judge’s ruling “is entitled to
great deference on review.” Elliott v. United States, 332 F.3d
753, 761 (4th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted).
The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two-level
downward adjustment for a defendant who “clearly demonstrates
acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” U.S. Sentencing
*
In the reply brief, Allen raises for the first time a
claim that the district court violated Apprendi v. New Jersey,
530 U.S. 466 (2000). We decline to consider this newly-raised
argument. See A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore Cnty., Md., 515
F.3d 356, 369 (4th Cir. 2008); Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d
246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
2
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3E1.1(a) (2012). While a defendant
is not required to admit to relevant conduct to obtain the
adjustment, “a defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously
contests, relevant conduct that the court determines to be true
has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of
responsibility.” USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(A).
Here, Allen accepted responsibility for the charged
offense -- being a felon in possession of a firearm. However,
he repeatedly denied the underlying relevant conduct -- that he
shot the victim. Upon review of the evidence supporting the
district court’s finding that Allen did, in fact, commit the
underlying shooting, we are not “left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Dugger, 485 F.3d
at 239 (quotation marks omitted). Thus, we conclude that the
district court did not clearly err in rejecting the two-level
downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under USSG
§ 3E1.1(a). Nor did the court err in rejecting the additional
one-level reduction found in USSG § 3E1.1(b).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3