Opinion
21-50147
06-27-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JASON MACDONALD, AKA Brian Conn, AKA Jason McConnell, AKA Jason McGines, AKA Jason McGiness, AKA Jason Michael, AKA Brandon Tartaglia, AKA Jason R. Thomas, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00018-CJC-1 Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Jason MacDonald appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for theft of government property exceeding $1,000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
MacDonald absconded prior to his originally scheduled sentencing hearing. Although he acknowledges that this conduct justified the district court's imposition of an obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, he contends that the court abused its discretion by failing to also grant him an acceptance of responsibility adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. He argues that his was the "extraordinary" case in which both an obstruction of justice enhancement and an acceptance of responsibility reduction were warranted, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.4, because his decision to abscond was motivated by his drug addiction rather than a desire to evade responsibility. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding otherwise. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The court acknowledged MacDonald's drug addiction, but reasonably determined that his obstructive conduct, which continued until he was arrested for new criminal conduct, was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that family-related motive for absconding did not create "extraordinary" case justifying an acceptance of responsibility adjustment despite imposition of obstruction of justice enhancement).
MacDonald's unopposed motion to file the unredacted reply brief under seal is granted. The Clerk will file under seal the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 32-2, and the motion to seal itself at Docket Entry No. 32-1.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).