Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantplea
defendantliabilitywill

Related Cases

Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 119 F.3d 91, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 9300
View Case »
Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield, 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 282 Cal.Rptr. 627
View Case »
Heffernan v. Hunter, 189 F.3d 405
View Case »
Tortoriello v. Gerald Nissan of North Aurora, Inc., 379 Ill.App.3d 214, 882 N.E.2d 157, 317 Ill.Dec. 583
View Case »
Carlough v. Amchem Products, Inc., 10 F.3d 189, 62 USLW 2377
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. McKissick, Not Reported in Fed. Rptr., 2023 WL 2366985

Facts

Johnathan McKissick was sentenced to 115 months in prison after pleading guilty to possessing five grams or more of actual methamphetamine. He sought a reduction in his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility, but the district court denied this request based on his conduct while in detention, specifically an assault on a fellow inmate. The court's decision was based on reliable information from video recordings and witness statements.

Issue

Did the district court err in denying McKissick a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1?

Did the district court err in denying McKissick a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1?

Rule

A district court's refusal to reduce a sentence for acceptance of responsibility is reviewed under a standard even more deferential than a pure clearly erroneous standard, and the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the information relied upon by the district court in sentencing is materially untrue.

“A district court's refusal to reduce a sentence for acceptance of responsibility is reviewed under a standard even more deferential than a pure clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Najera , 915 F.3d 997, 1002 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We will not reverse the decision to deny such a reduction unless it is “without foundation.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) .

Analysis

The court found that the district court's decision to deny the reduction was based on credible evidence of McKissick's assault on another inmate, which was supported by video recordings and witness statements. McKissick failed to provide any evidence to counter this information, thus not meeting his burden to show that the district court relied on inaccurate or materially untrue information.

The record does not demonstrate that the decision to deny a § 3E1.1 reduction—based on McKissick's assaulting a fellow inmate while in detention—was “without foundation.” Id. “The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the information relied upon by the district court in sentencing is materially untrue.” United States v. Ramirez , 367 F.3d 274, 277 (5th Cir. 2014) . The court was entitled to rely on the information about the assault recorded in the PSR, given that it bore sufficient indicia of reliability because it was based on video recordings and statements of those present. See United States v. Harris , 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012) . McKissick offered no evidence to rebut the disputed information; thus, he did not meet his burden to show that the district court relied on inaccurate or materially untrue information. See United States v. Alaniz , 726 F.3d 586, 619 (5th Cir. 2013) . Accordingly, the court did not reversibly err by denying McKissick a § 3E1.1 reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See Najera , 915 F.3d at 1002 .

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that there was no reversible error in denying McKissick a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

AFFIRMED.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that the district court's denial of the reduction was supported by reliable evidence and not without foundation.

You must be