US v. Simon Allen, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cr-00324-TMC-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999772312].. [15-4336]
Appeal: 15-4336
Doc: 44
Filed: 03/11/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4336
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SIMON ALLEN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:14-cr-00324-TMC-2)
Submitted:
February 25, 2016
Decided:
March 11, 2016
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James R. Battle, BATTLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Conway, South Carolina,
for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United States Attorney,
William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4336
Doc: 44
Filed: 03/11/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Simon Allen, Jr., appeals his 12-month-and-one-day sentence
imposed after he pled guilty without a plea agreement to one
count of conspiracy to defraud the Government, in violation of
18
U.S.C.
§ 371
(2012).
Allen’s
sole
argument
is
that
the
district court erred when it refused to reduce his offense level
for acceptance of responsibility.
According to Allen, because
he was represented by counsel during the criminal proceedings
against him, his pro se filings were not properly before the
district court.
Thus, Allen asserts that the district court
violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it considered
the pro se filings as a reason to deprive him of an acceptance
of responsibility reduction.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2013), a
district court is instructed to decrease a criminal defendant’s
offense
level
by
two
levels
if
the
defendant
“clearly
demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense,” and
to decrease it by one additional level if the Government files a
motion and the offense level prior to the two-level reduction
was 16 or higher.
must
prove
clearly
by
a
To earn the reduction, however, the defendant
preponderance
recognized
responsibility
for
and
his
of
the
evidence
affirmatively
criminal
conduct.”
Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1005 (4th Cir. 1996).
2
“that
accepted
United
he
has
personal
States
v.
Appeal: 15-4336
Doc: 44
Filed: 03/11/2016
Pg: 3 of 4
The commentary to the Guidelines provides a non-exclusive
list
of
“appropriate
defendant
is
reduction.
considerations”
entitled
USSG
to
§ 3E1.1
an
to
determine
acceptance
cmt.
n.1.
of
Most
whether
a
responsibility
relevant
to
this
appeal, a reduction should be given if the defendant “truthfully
admit[s] the conduct comprising the offense(s) of conviction,
and
truthfully
additional
relevant
accountable[.]”
“a
admit[s]
defendant
or
[does]
conduct
not
falsely
for
which
the
USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(A).
who
falsely
denies,
or
deny[]
any
defendant
is
On the other hand,
frivolously
contests,
relevant conduct that the court determines to be true has acted
in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility[.]”
USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(A).
considered
the
parties’
We have reviewed the record and have
arguments
and
find
no
error
in
the
district court’s determination that Allen’s offense level should
not be reduced for acceptance of responsibility.
States
v.
Hargrove,
(recognizing
that
478
district
F.3d
195,
198
(4th
court
acceptance
of
See United
Cir.
2007)
responsibility
determination is reviewed for clear error as “district courts
are uniquely qualified to evaluate whether to grant or deny a
sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility”).
Although
Allen
summarily
states
that
the
district
court
violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it considered his pro
se filings, we discern no merit to this argument.
3
Admittedly,
Appeal: 15-4336
Doc: 44
Filed: 03/11/2016
Pg: 4 of 4
the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, once invoked, “protects a
suspect
against
the
deliberate
elicitation
of
statements in the absence of his attorney.”
Payne, 954 F.2d 199, 203 (4th Cir. 1992).
incriminating
United States v.
Thus, “[t]he Sixth
Amendment functions to protect the unaided layman at critical
confrontations with his expert adversary, the government, after
the
adverse
positions
of
government
and
defendant
have
solidified with respect to a particular alleged crime.”
Id.
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
Here, Allen
was represented by competent counsel yet he chose to confront
the
Government
and
take
positions
inconsistent
expressing repentance for criminal conduct.
with
one
The Government did
not solicit these communications from Allen; Allen chose to send
them of his own volition and wanted them to be considered by the
district
court.
Accordingly,
we
discern
no
Sixth
Amendment
violation.
Based
judgment.
legal
before
on
the
foregoing,
we
affirm
the
district
court’s
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?