[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-10831 OCTOBER 21, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 4:10-cr-00070-RH-WCS-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARCUS KNIGHT,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(October 21, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, CARNES, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Knight appeals his 120-month sentence, imposed at the bottom of
his applicable guideline range, after a jury found him guilty of one count of
conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Knight contends that the district court clearly
erred in not granting him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
I.
Knight was arrested after a Drug Enforcement Administration informant
arranged to purchase cocaine from someone else through Knight. After being
advised of his Miranda rights, Knight admitted that he had done “at least a
hundred” similar deals over a period of five years. Knight was indicted for
conspiracy to distribute, and possess with intent to distribute, 500 or more grams
of cocaine. While Knight did not concede guilt at trial, he presented no defense
and generally contested only the amount of drugs. A jury was unable to determine
whether he was responsible for that amount of cocaine, and he was convicted of a
lesser included offense. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).
The presentence investigation report assigned Knight a base offense level of
28 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5), (c)(6) and did not apply a two-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1. Knight objected to the base offense
level calculation and to the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
At the sentence hearing, the district court agreed that the PSR incorrectly
calculated the amount of drugs involved and reduced the base offense level to 26
under § 2D1.1(c)(7).
2
Also at the sentence hearing, Knight stated, “I wasn’t that picture they
painted of me being a drug dealer. I was just a drug user.” He also suggested a
recording of his statement “would have made a big difference,” because the DEA
was “basically telling a lie.” The district court denied the acceptance of
responsibility reduction. It explained that Knight’s statements were inconsistent
with acceptance of responsibility because he still denied being a drug dealer.
Knight’s offense level of 26 and his criminal history category of VI resulted in a
guidelines range of 120 to 150 months, and the court sentenced him to 120 months
imprisonment.
II.
“We review a denial of a reduction of sentence for an acceptance of
responsibility for clear error, and that finding is entitled to great deference on
review and should not be disturbed unless it is without foundation.” United States
v. Knight, 562 F.3d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). The
district court denied the § 3E1.1 reduction based on Knight’s own statements at
the sentence hearing. In light of those statements, we cannot say the court erred,
much less clearly erred.
AFFIRMED.
3