U.S. v. Coe, 95-4193
| Decision Date | 29 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-4193,95-4193 |
| Citation | 79 F.3d 126 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond COE, a/k/a Raymond Robertson, Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Kathleen Williams, Federal Public Defender, Miami, FL, Robert E. Adler, Asst. Federal Public Defender, West Palm Beach, FL, for Appellant.
Kendall Coffey, U.S. Attorney, Linda Collins Hertz, Dawn Bowen, Diane Acosta, Miami, FL, for Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Coe appeals his sentence of 267 months for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Coe argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under USSG § 3E1.1 (1994). In reviewing a trial court's refusal to grant an adjustment, this court reviews interpretations of the sentencing guidelines de novo, United States v. Pedersen, 3 F.3d 1468, 1470 (11th Cir.1993), and factual determinations for clear error, United States v. Kendrick, 22 F.3d 1066, 1068 (11th Cir.1994).
Section 3E1.1 requires a downward adjustment "[i]f the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense." USSG § 3E1.1(a). To determine whether a defendant qualifies, a sentencing court should consider whether he "truthfully admitt[ed] or [did] not falsely deny[ ] any additional relevant conduct for which the defendant is accountable under § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct)." USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n. 1). Relevant conduct under § 1B1.3 includes
all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant ... that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.
USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1). The commentary to § 1B1.3 further explains:
The principles and limits of sentencing accountability under this guideline are not always the same as the principles and limits of criminal liability. Under subsection[ ] (a)(1) ... the focus is on the specific acts and omissions for which the defendant is to be held accountable in determining the applicable guideline range, rather than on whether the defendant is criminally liable for an offense as a principal, accomplice, or conspirator.
USSG § 1B1.3, comment. (n. 1).
Coe admitted that he used a firearm to commit a robbery, although he claimed he could not remember whether he had pulled the weapon's trigger. The government points out that Coe initially denied that he had held the gun to the victim's head and pulled the trigger and had brandished the gun at other civilians. The district court found that Coe did not accept responsibility because he was not forthright about brandishing the gun and pulling its trigger.
On appeal, Coe argues that whether he accepted responsibility for pulling the trigger...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Roosevelt Coats
...of the Guidelines de novo." United States v. Mathews , 874 F.3d 698, 709, n.7 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Coe , 79 F.3d 126, 127 (11th Cir. 1996) ). We review the factual findings upon which the denial of the acceptance reduction is based for clear error. Id. (citing United St......
-
U.S. v. Pielago
...Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Finally, we review the district court's interpretation of the sentencing guidelines de novo. See United States v. Coe, 79 F.3d 126, 127 (11th Cir.1996). IV. A. WHETHER THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED Varona challenges the district court's denial of......
-
United States v. McClure-Potts
...within the ambit of the relevant conduct that the District Court could permissibly assess at sentencing. See, e.g. , United States v. Coe , 79 F.3d 126, 127 (11th Cir. 1996) ("[T]he broad language of § 1B1.3(a) is clear: relevant conduct includes all acts that occurred during the commission......
-
United States v. Gardner
...of conviction," U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). 27. United States v. McClure-Potts, 908 F.3d 30, 40 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Coe, 79 F.3d 126, 127 (11th Cir. 1996)). 28. See Montrose Med. Grp. Participating Sav. Plan v. Bulger, 243 F.3d 773, 777-78 (3d Cir. 2001).Judicial estoppel m......
-
Federal Sentencing Guidelines - Deborah R. Jordan
...1996). 69. Id. at 386. 70. Id. at 385-86. 71. Id. at 387. 72. 106 F.3d 350 (11th Cir. 1996). 73. Id. at 351. 74. Id. at 352. 75. Id. 76. 79 F.3d 126, 128 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). 77. Id. at 127. 78. Id. 79. United States v. Arguedas, 86 F.3d 1054, 1059-60 (11th Cir. 1996) (citing Unit......