United States v. Timothy West ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-2286
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Timothy West, also known as Timothy Muhammad
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls
    ____________
    Submitted: May 18, 2018
    Filed: June 5, 2018
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    After pleading guilty to two federal offenses, Timothy West violated his
    conditions of release by using marijuana. At sentencing, the district court 1 denied
    1
    The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the
    District of South Dakota.
    an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction because of West’s failure to comply with
    the law. He challenges the court’s decision to deny the reduction, even though we
    have consistently held that “unrelated criminal conduct may make an acceptance of
    responsibility reduction inappropriate.” United States v. Arellano, 
    291 F.3d 1032
    ,
    1035 (8th Cir. 2002). Applying this precedent, we affirm.
    At his sentencing hearing, West argued that he had accepted responsibility for
    his crimes, so he deserved a reduction to his offense level under section 3E1.1 of the
    United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”). The court found West had not
    accepted responsibility, based in part on a positive marijuana test, and sentenced him
    to twenty-four months in prison.
    “One factor in determining whether a defendant has clearly demonstrated
    acceptance is whether he has withdrawn from ‘criminal conduct.’” Arellano, 
    291 F.3d at
    1034–35 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(b)). West’s sole argument on
    appeal is that the district court should have considered only criminal conduct related
    to his underlying offenses in assessing whether he had accepted responsibility for
    his crimes. In West’s view, the district court should have ignored his marijuana use
    because it was unrelated to either of his offenses.
    This is not a question of first impression. In United States v. Byrd, we held
    that a district court does not abuse its discretion if it considers a positive marijuana
    test in denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, even if the marijuana use
    is unrelated to the offense of conviction. 
    76 F.3d 194
    , 197 (8th Cir. 1996); see also
    United States v. William, 
    681 F.3d 936
    , 939 (8th Cir. 2012) (affirming the denial of
    an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction based in part on the defendant’s
    involvement in an unrelated robbery). West’s argument boils down to a request to
    overrule Byrd, something that we as a panel may not do. See Owsley v. Luebbers,
    
    281 F.3d 687
    , 690 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (“[O]ne panel is bound by the
    decision of a prior panel.”).
    -2-
    The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -3-