United States v. Peter Harmon ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              DEC 08 2009
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 08-50565
    Plaintiff - Appellee,               D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00695-ODW-1
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    PETER HARMON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Otis D. Wright, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 2, 2009 **
    San Francisco, California
    Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
    Criminal defendant Peter Harmon appeals the district court’s sentence of
    four months imprisonment and three years of supervised release following his plea
    of guilty to possession of stolen mail under 
    18 U.S.C. § 1708
    . Harmon contends
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
    oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    that he was entitled to a reduction in sentence under the section 3E1.1 of the
    federal sentencing guidelines for accepting responsibility for his actions. We have
    jurisdiction pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
     and 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review the
    district court’s factual determination of whether a defendant has accepted
    responsibility for clear error. United States v. Wilson, 
    392 F.3d 1055
    , 1061 (9th
    Cir. 2005).
    The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
    Under the federal sentencing guidelines, a criminal defendant is entitled to a
    downward adjustment if he clearly accepts responsibility for all of his relevant
    conduct. 
    Id.
     A plea of guilty is evidence of acceptance of responsibility, but it
    may be outweighed by a defendant’s inconsistent conduct. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 app.
    n.3. The defendant carries the burden of proof in demonstrating acceptance of
    responsibility. United States v. Innie, 
    7 F.3d 840
    , 848 (9th Cir. 1993).
    The district court did not clearly err when it determined that Harmon had not
    clearly accepted responsibility. The district court found that Harmon had not
    clearly accepted responsibility despite his admission and guilty plea because of his
    pattern of missing appointments with probation officers and showing up late to
    court, if at all. The court found this behavior inconsistent with acceptance of
    responsibility and declined to apply a reduction. This determination is entitled to
    2
    “great discretion” and is amply supported by the record. See Wilson, 
    392 F.3d at 1061
     (noting we “afford the district court great deference because of its unique
    position to evaluate a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility”) (internal quotation
    marks omitted).
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-50565

Judges: Hug, Skopil, Beezer

Filed Date: 12/8/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/1/2024