USA v. Baker, No. 23-60010 (5th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-60010 Document: 00516953115 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-60010 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED November 1, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Cadrius Baker, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:20-CR-97-1 ______________________________ Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Following a bench trial, Cadrius Baker was convicted of: making a false statement while acquiring, or attempting to acquire, a firearm; making a false statement concerning information in an official record; and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6), _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-60010 Document: 00516953115 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2023 No. 23-60010 (n), and 924(a)(1)(A). He contends the district court erred by denying his request for a Guideline § 3E1.1 adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Because the sentencing court is in a unique position to evaluate defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, great deference is afforded the court’s finding: our court will “affirm the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility 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. 2019) (citation omitted); see Guideline § 3E1.1 cmt. n.5. Baker does not meet this standard. The court’s rejection of the requested adjustment was based on an implicit adverse credibility finding we will not disturb. See United States v. Spires, 79 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 1996) (explaining decisions concerning acceptance of responsibility will almost always be upheld because they are heavily dependent on credibility determinations). 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.