IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10077
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRADLEY RAY SARGENT,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:94-CR-75-A-1
- - - - - - - - - -
August 22, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bradley Ray Sargent contends that the district court
erroneously enhanced his sentence for obstruction of justice and
denied him a downward adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility. The standard of review with respect to upward
adjustments for obstruction of justice and with respect to the
denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment is "clearly
erroneous." See United States v. Winn, 948 F.2d 145, 161 (5th
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-10077
-2-
Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 976 (1992); United States v.
Watkins, 911 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir. 1990).
Section 3C1.1 of the sentencing guidelines specifically
contemplates the use of the obstruction enhancement when a
defendant either obstructs or "attempts" to obstruct justice.
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The district court made a separate factual
finding at sentencing that it was "satisfied that [Sargent's]
goal was to cause those people to give false testimony or a false
affidavit in exchange for restitution, so to speak. I consider
that to be obstruction of justice." Even viewed in the light
most favorable to Sargent, the affidavits evidence Sargent's
attempt to obstruct justice.
A defendant who receives an offense-level enhancement for
obstruction of justice qualifies for a reduction based on
acceptance of responsibility only in extraordinary circumstances.
§ 3E1.1, comment. (n.4). "Conduct resulting in an enhancement
under § 3C1.1 . . . ordinarily indicates that the defendant has
not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct." Id.
The district court did not clearly err in determining that
Sargent's conduct warranted the obstruction-of-justice
enhancement and that he was not entitled to a reduction in his
offense level for acceptance of responsibility. Sargent's
sentence is AFFIRMED.