US v. Joshua Hall, No. 07-4737 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4737 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSHUA LACY HALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00299-WLO) Submitted: January 30, 2009 Decided: February 17, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas H. Johnson, Jr., GRAY JOHNSON BLACKMON LEE & LAWSON, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, David P. Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joshua Lacy Hall appeals the 140-month sentence he received following his guilty plea to one count of conspiring to manufacture 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). Hall s sole contention on appeal is that the district court erred in not awarding him a reduction for his acceptance of responsibility, as authorized by § 3E1.1 (2006). U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. We review a sentencing court s decision to grant or deny a reduction for the defendant s acceptance of United States v. Kise, 369 F.3d responsibility for clear error. 766, 771 (4th Cir. 2004); United States v. May, 359 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004). A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite conviction that a mistake has been committed. and firm United States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). We accord the district acceptance court s responsibility decision reduction to grant great or deny deference. an Id. (citing of USSG § 3E1.1, cmt. n.5 (2005)). Pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1, a defendant may be given a two- or three-level reduction in his offense level if he clearly 2 demonstrates offense. must he has accepted responsibility for the In order to receive such a reduction, the defendant prove clearly that by a preponderance recognized and of the evidence affirmatively responsibility for his criminal conduct. that accepted he has personal May, 359 F.3d at 693 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Hall maintains he was eligible for the reduction by virtue of his guilty plea, despite the fact that, after pleading guilty, he informed the probation officer that he wished to withdraw his guilty plea and that he was not involved in selling or manufacturing methamphetamine. Hall s argument fails. A guilty plea reflects some level of acceptance of responsibility, but does not automatically entitle a defendant to the reduction. USSG § 3E1.1, cmt. n.3; May, 359 F.3d at 693. 3 to § 3E1.1 clearly establishes that it Application Note is a guilty plea combined with truthfully admitting the conduct comprising the offense of conviction that is significant evidence of acceptance of responsibility. Although Hall did admit his illegal conduct at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, his statements to the probation officer denying his involvement in the conspiracy and indicating his desire to withdraw his guilty plea negated the impact of that admission. Application Note 3 establishes that a guilty plea may be outweighed by conduct . . . that is inconsistent 3 with such n.3. acceptance That is of the responsibility. case here, as USSG § 3E1.1, Hall s cmt. post-admission recantation of his guilt and his denial of his role in the charged offense is clearly inconsistent with accepting responsibility. See May, 359 F.3d at 693-95 (finding district court in permitting inter alia, erred indicated, reduction that underlying the offense). when defendant presentence denied the report facts Although Hall attempted to minimize the significance of his statements at sentencing by averring that he accept[ed] responsibility for the amount that me and the Government accepting have agreed responsibility, demonstrate acceptance to these of and efforts offering were responsibility. a statement insufficient to Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in declining to grant the reduction. For the foregoing reasons, we reject Hall s argument on appeal and affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
