United States v. Chester Sanders ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                         United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 97-1040
    ___________
    United States of America,   *
    *
    Appellee,          *
    *
    Appeal from the United States
    v.                      *
    District Court of the
    *
    Western District of Arkansas.
    Chester Sanders, III,       *
    *
    [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellant.         *
    ___________
    Submitted: August 7, 1997
    Filed: August 25,
    1997
    ___________
    Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY,
    Circuit                    Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Chester Sanders, III appeals the 70-month sentence
    imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to
    aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery, in violation
    of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113 and 2. For reversal, Sanders argues
    1
    The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court
    for the Western District of Arkansas.
    -1-
    that the court clearly erred when it denied him an
    acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
    -2-
    “Sentencing Guideline § 3E1.1 allows the district
    court to reduce the offense level of a defendant who
    #clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his
    offense.&” United States v. Evans, 
    51 F.3d 764
    , 766 (8th
    Cir. 1995) (quoting U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §
    3E1.1(a) (1995)). The defendant carries the burden of
    establishing acceptance of responsibility, see United
    States v. Morales, 
    923 F.2d 621
    , 628 (8th Cir. 1991), and
    the court&s decision to deny such a reduction is afforded
    great deference and will not be disturbed unless it is
    clearly erroneous, see 
    Evans, 51 F.3d at 766
    .
    We conclude the district court did not clearly err in
    denying Sanders the reduction based, among other things,
    on Sanders&s failure to plead guilty until the morning of
    trial when the jury panel was present. See USSG § 3E1.1,
    comment. (n.1); United States v. Yell, 
    18 F.3d 581
    , 583-
    84 (8th Cir. 1994). Sanders&s reliance on United States
    v. Knight, 
    905 F.2d 189
    (8th Cir. 1990), is misplaced, as
    the district court&s decision in that case did not involve
    the timeliness of the defendant&s guilty plea.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
    affirmed.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH
    CIRCUIT.
    -3-