United States v. Michael Mason ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4558
MICHAEL MASON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-98-236)
Submitted: May 16, 2000
Decided: June 5, 2000
Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Stephen L. Shelnutt, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, Vincent J. Falvo, Jr., Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Michael Mason appeals from seventy-seven months sentence for
assault with a deadly weapon, 18 U.S.C.A. § 113(a)(3) (West Supp.
1999), and prisoner possession of a shank, 18 U.S.C.A. § 13 (West
Supp. 1999), assimilating Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-203(4) (Michie
1998). Mason argues that the district court erred in failing to award
Mason a reduction in offense level based upon acceptance of respon-
sibility pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1
(1998).
This Court reviews a district court's decision to deny an acceptance
of responsibility adjustment for clear error. See United States v. Holt,
79 F.3d 14, 17 (4th Cir. 1996). To receive a reduction under USSG
§ 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility, a defendant must prove by
a preponderance of the evidence that he has clearly recognized and
affirmatively accepted personal responsibility for his criminal con-
duct. See United States v. Martinez, 901 F.2d 374, 377 (4th Cir.
1990). The timeliness of a defendant's indication of responsibility is
a factor the court may consider in deciding whether the adjustment is
appropriate. See USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(h)). The district court
is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant's acceptance of respon-
sibility, and its determination is entitled to great deference on review.
USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5); United States v. White, 875 F.2d 427,
430-31 (4th Cir. 1989).
We have reviewed the briefs and the materials submitted in the
joint appendix and find no clear error in the district court's decision
to deny Mason a reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsi-
bility. Accordingly, we affirm Mason's sentence.
AFFIRMED
2