United States v. Denisha Pore , 591 F. App'x 276 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 14-60167      Document: 00512914937         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/26/2015
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    No. 14-60167
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    Summary Calendar                        January 26, 2015
    Lyle W. Cayce
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                        Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    DENISHA PORE, also known as Denisha Turnage, also known as Denisha House,
    also known as Nicole Pore,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 3:13-CR-21-1
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Denisha Pore pled guilty to one count of wire fraud and was sentenced
    to 125 months in prison. On appeal, she contends that the district court erred
    by refusing to grant an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
    We will affirm the sentencing court’s decision not to give credit for
    acceptance of responsibility “unless it is without foundation, a standard of
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 14-60167    Document: 00512914937    Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/26/2015
    No. 14-60167
    review more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard.” United States
    v. Juarez-Duarte, 
    513 F.3d 204
    , 211 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks
    and citation omitted). The record shows that Pore violated a condition of
    pretrial release by possessing a computer. More significantly, the presentence
    report recounted ample, reliable, and unrebutted evidence to show, for present
    purposes, that Pore embarked on a new fraud scheme after her arrest for the
    instant fraud offense. These are grounds for denying credit for acceptance of
    responsibility. See United States v. Rickett, 
    89 F.3d 224
    , 227 (5th Cir. 1996).
    The decision to deny credit for acceptance was not without a foundation. See
    Juarez-Duarte, 
    513 F.3d at 211
    . The judgment is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-60167

Citation Numbers: 591 F. App'x 276

Filed Date: 1/26/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023