United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 6, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-11004
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OTHAL D. MASEY, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-00186
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Othal Masey appeals the district court’s denial of a two
level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to
section 3E1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines. Masey is
currently incarcerated on a guilty plea conviction for being a
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2).
He argues that the district court adopted an automatic
approach in denying him a two level reduction and that the
district court failed to find that his pretrial release
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-11004
-2-
violations were willful. The court need not decide whether plain
error applies to these precise issues because Masey’s arguments
fail even under a more lenient clear error standard.
This court reviews the district court’s interpretation of
the guidelines de novo and its factual determinations for clear
error. United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir.
2005); United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 n.9 (5th
Cir. 2005). “If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of
responsibility for his offense,” his offense level should be
decreased by two levels. U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 3E1.1(a)
(2004). Because “[t]he sentencing judge is in a unique position
to evaluate a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility,” the
§ 3E1.1 determination “is entitled to great deference on review.”
U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 3E1.1 cmt. n.5 (2004).
The sentencing transcript reflects that the district court
thoroughly considered Masey’s arguments in support of the
reduction at the sentencing hearing. Masey failed to rebut the
information contained in the presentence report that Masey’s
employer and friend was willing to provide him transportation to
his Alcohol Anonymous meetings in accordance with pretrial
release conditions. See United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287,
290 (5th Cir. 2006). To the extent that Masey argues that the
district court failed to make a finding that his violations were
willful, Masey cites neither case law nor statutory authority
that a finding of willfulness must be made prior to denying a
No. 05-11004
-3-
reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the
district court did not err in denying a two level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility. See Villegas, 404 F.3d at 359;
Villanueva, 408 F.3d at 203 n.9.
AFFIRMED.