USA v. Oshea St. John, No. 19-11301 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-11301 Document: 00515567402 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 16, 2020 No. 19-11301 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Oshea Jaron St. John, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CR-206-1 Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Oshea Jaron St. John pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit access device fraud and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment. In his sole issue on appeal, he challenges the district court’s * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-11301 Document: 00515567402 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/16/2020 No. 19-11301 denial of a reduction to his offense level for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. For the following reasons, we affirm. Denial of a § 3E1.1(a) reduction for acceptance of responsibility is “reviewed with particular deference” and will not be reversed “unless it is without foundation, a standard of review more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1017 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 320 (2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). On that standard of review, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying a § 3E1.1 reduction based on its determination that St. John falsely denied or frivolously contested relevant conduct in his objections to the presentence report, which contradicted facts he had admitted under oath in connection with his guilty plea. See Lord, 915 F.3d at 1017, 1020; § 3E1.1 comment. (n.1(A)). We are unpersuaded by St. John’s arguments that the district court was required to ignore those objections or to construe them as consistent with his acceptance of responsibility. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
