US v. Jonathan Savage

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00688-CMC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999408977].. [14-4153]

Appeal: 14-4153

Doc: 27

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JONATHAN W. SAVAGE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00688-CMC-1)

Submitted:

July 21, 2014

Decided:

August 4, 2014

Before SHEDD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Rogers, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United
States Attorney, T. DeWayne Pearson, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4153

Doc: 27

Filed: 08/04/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jonathan

W.

Savage

pleaded

guilty

to

one

count

of

making, forging and counterfeiting United States currency, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471 (2012).
district

court

by

Guidelines

Sentencing

erred

for

not

Savage contends that the

giving

acceptance

him
of

credit

under

responsibility.

the
We

affirm.
The determination of whether a defendant is deserving
of an acceptance of responsibility adjustment is a factual issue
and thus reviewed for clear error.
F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007).
unique

position

responsibility,
sentencing

to
and

judge

is

“The sentencing judge is in a

evaluate
thus

.

entitled

United States v. Dugger, 485

a
.

defendant’s

.

to

the
great

acceptance

determination
deference

on

of

of
the

review.”

Elliott v. United States, 332 F.3d 753, 761 (4th Cir. 2003)
(internal quotations and brackets omitted).

We will reverse the

district court’s finding only when “left with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

Dugger, 485

F.3d at 239 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Section 3E1.1 of the Guidelines Manual provides for a
two-level reduction for a defendant who “‘clearly demonstrates
acceptance

of

responsibility

for

his

offense.’”

United

States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 678 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting
USSG § 3E1.1(a)).

To merit this reduction, the defendant must
2

Appeal: 14-4153

Doc: 27

establish
clearly

by

Filed: 08/04/2014

a

preponderance

recognized

responsibility

for

and
his

Pg: 3 of 4

of

the

evidence

affirmatively

criminal

accepted

conduct.”

Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1005 (4th Cir. 1996).

“that

United

he

has

personal
States

v.

The Guidelines note

that in considering this adjustment, the district court should
look at whether the defendant voluntarily terminated or withdrew
from criminal conduct and whether the defendant engaged in postoffense rehabilitative efforts, among other factors.
Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§ 3E1.1,

application

See U.S.

notes

1(B),

(G); see also Dugger, 485 F.3d at 240 (a court may look for a
clear demonstration of acceptance of responsibility by voluntary
termination of or withdrawal from criminal conduct).

Evidence

of continued drug use after indictment but before a guilty plea
may support the district court’s decision to deny an acceptance
of responsibility enhancement.

See United States v. Underwood,

970 F.2d 1336, 1338-39 (4th Cir. 1992).

Even criminal conduct

unrelated to the charged criminal conduct may support a finding
that

the

defendant

has

not

accepted

responsibility.

United

States v. Arellano, 291 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (8th Cir. 2002); see
also United States v. Prince, 204 F.3d 1021, 1023 (10th Cir.
2000); United States v. Ceccarani, 98 F.3d 126, 130 (3d Cir.
1996).
We conclude that the district court’s decision not to
give

Savage

credit

for

acceptance
3

of

responsibility

was

not

Appeal: 14-4153

Doc: 27

Filed: 08/04/2014

clearly erroneous.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

Pg: 4 of 4

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4