United States v. Carlisle , 202 F. App'x 716 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT October 16, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41603
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES RAY CARLISLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(3:05-CR-4-ALL)
Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Primarily at issue is whether the district court erred in
rejecting James Ray Carlisle’s start-of-trial plea-agreement
acceptance. Also at issue is whether, in the light of that
attempted plea-agreement, the court erred in refusing to grant
Carlisle an acceptance-of-responsibility offense-level reduction,
pursuant to Guidelines § 3E1.1. AFFIRMED.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
I.
Carlisle was charged with possession with intent to distribute
phencyclidine; possession of marijuana; and possession of a
firearm, both in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense and by
a convicted felon. On the morning of trial, and after having
previously entered a not-guilty plea, Carlisle reached a plea
agreement with the Government in which he would plead guilty to one
drug charge and one firearm-possession charge, in exchange for
dismissal of the remaining two charges. The parties advised the
district court of the agreement through the courtroom deputy.
The court rejected the agreement; no record was made at trial
of its rationale for doing so. Moreover, at trial, Carlisle made
no record objection to the rejection. Upon being advised the plea-
agreement had been rejected, Carlisle proceeded to trial, rather
than enter a guilty plea. The jury found him guilty on all four
counts.
At sentencing, in considering whether to allow Carlisle a two-
level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, based on the rejected
plea agreement, the district court noted the agreement’s
untimeliness and refused the reduction. Carlisle was sentenced to
60-months imprisonment on each of the phencyclidine and possession-
of-a-firearm-by-a-convicted-felon counts, and 12 months on the
marijuana count, the three sentences to run concurrently. He was
sentenced to 60-months imprisonment on the possession-of-a-firearm-
2
in-furtherance-of-a-drug-trafficking-offense count, to run
consecutively to the concurrent sentences.
II.
A.
Because Carlisle did not object at trial to the court’s
rejection of the plea agreement, our review of that ruling is only
for plain error. See United States v. Foy, 28 F.3d 464, 471-72
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1031 (1994). Under such review,
we have discretion to correct a clear or obvious error that
affected substantial rights. E.g., United States v. Alvarado-
Santilano, 434 F.3d 794, 795 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.
Ct. 1812-13 (2006). Generally, such error will be corrected only
when it “has a serious effect on the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted).
Our court does not require a district court to state its
reasons for rejecting a plea agreement. Foy, 28 F.3d at 472.
Accordingly, the plea-agreement rejection does not constitute
error, much less reversible plain error.
B.
Concomitantly, because Carlisle proceeded to trial, there was
no reversible error in his being denied an acceptance-of-
responsibility reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.2 (“This
adjustment is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the
3
government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential
factual elements of guilt ....”).
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.
4