USA v. Mack Hinojosa, No. 19-41063 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-41063 Document: 00515545219 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 28, 2020 No. 19-41063 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Mack Hinojosa, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:19-CR-669-1 Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Mack Hinojosa appeals the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. He argues that the district court erred by denying his request * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-41063 Document: 00515545219 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/28/2020 No. 19-41063 for a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(a)– (b) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We review a district court’s refusal to grant an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility “with even greater deference” than clear error review. United States v. Buchanan, 485 F.3d 274, 287 (5th Cir. 2007). This Court will not reverse a denial of a reduction under § 3E1.1 unless the decision is “without foundation.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In determining whether a reduction under § 3E1.1 applies, the district court may consider the defendant’s “voluntary termination or withdrawal from criminal conduct or associations.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(B) (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n 2018); cf. United States v. Watkins, 911 F.2d 983, 985 (5th Cir. 1990). Here, the district court’s denial of a § 3E1.1 reduction was not without foundation because it was based on the district court’s finding that, after his guilty plea and while in custody, Hinojosa engaged in conduct in violation of the law and prison rules when he struck, or attempted to strike, a correctional officer. See Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 208, 211. The district court’s judgment is 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.
