U.S. v. Ayala

7 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Beattie

    919 F.3d 1110 (8th Cir. 2019)   Cited 4 times

    This Court gives great deference to the district court’s denial of a request for a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and reviews the decision for clear error." United States v. Vega, 676 F.3d 708, 723 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Ayala, 610 F.3d 1035, 1036 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)).

  2. United States v. Spencer

    700 F.3d 317 (8th Cir. 2012)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding it nearly inconceivable that district court abused its discretion in not further varying downward

    I also note that our system of sentencing may be improved through the use of sentencing councils, which I have discussed elsewhere. United States v. Ayala, 610 F.3d 1035, 1037–38 (8th Cir.2010) (Bright, J., concurring). To ensure that criminal defendants receive fair sentences, this dissent urges that sentencing judges always engage in a meaningful analysis of the § 3553(a) factors—the process should not devolve to be rote, mechanical, and artificial. Whether imposing a sentence within, above, or below the guidelines, the touchstone should always be the standard in § 3553 of a sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary and judges should verify the sentence pursuant to § 3553(a), explaining for the record “(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed ... (6) the need to avoid unwarranted disparities.”

  3. United States v. Vega

    676 F.3d 708 (8th Cir. 2012)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that 8.6 grams of meth was a distribution amount

    This Court gives great deference to the district court's denial of a request for a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and reviews the decision for clear error.” United States v. Ayala, 610 F.3d 1035, 1036 (8th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (quotation and citation omitted). “Under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), the burden is on a defendant to show that he clearly demonstrated acceptance of responsibility.”

  4. United States v. Shade

    661 F.3d 1159 (8th Cir. 2011)   Cited 5 times

    “Whether the defendant accepted responsibility is a factual question that depends largely on credibility assessments made by the sentencing court. This Court gives great deference to the district court's denial of a request for a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and reviews the decision for clear error.” United States v. Ayala, 610 F.3d 1035, 1036 (8th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (quotation and citation omitted). Contrary to Shade's argument, “[a] defendant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility,” even where “the probation office recommend[s] that [the defendant] receive the reduction, but the government oppose[s] the reduction.”

  5. U.S. v. Brewer

    624 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2010)   Cited 135 times
    Holding that the police need no additional justification to search a defendant's person following a lawful arrest.

    In my view, the difference in sentences between similar offenders should not depend on which side of the interstate a crime was committed or where the offender was arrested. See United States v. Ayala, 610 F.3d 1035, 1037-38 (8th Cir. 2010) (Bright, J., concurring) (discussing the need to reduce sentencing disparity in the post-Booker era). After the Sentencing Commission's 2007 revisions to the Guidelines, the crack/powder ratio varies between 25 to 1 and 80 to 1. Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 106, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007).

  6. United States v. Amaya

    949 F. Supp. 2d 895 (N.D. Iowa 2013)   Cited 6 times

    See United States v. Daniels, 625 F.3d 529, 534 (8th Cir.2010); United States v. Wallenfang, 568 F.3d 649, 661 (8th Cir.2009); United States v. Herron, 539 F.3d 881, 887–88 (8th Cir.2008). “ ‘Whether the defendant accepted responsibility is a factual question that depends largely on credibility assessments made by the sentencing court.’ ” United States v. Ayala, 610 F.3d 1035, 1036 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1122–23 (8th Cir.2005)).

  7. United States v. Brown

    877 F. Supp. 2d 736 (D. Minn. 2012)   Cited 3 times
    Stating that a sentencing court focuses on intent when deciding whether to grant credit for repayments

    Paragraph 54 of the PSR gives Defendant a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Under USSG § 3E1.1(a) a sentence is decreased two levels if the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility and an additional one-level reduction is available if the defendant gives timely notice of her intent to plead guilty. Id.§ 3E1.1(b). A defendant acts inconsistently with the acceptance of responsibility when he “falsely denies ... relevant conduct” determined by the court to be true. Id.§ 3E1.1 n. 1(A). “Whether the defendant accepted responsibility is a factual question that depends largely on credibility assessments made by the sentencing court.” United States v. Ayala, 610 F.3d 1035, 1036 (8th Cir.2010) (quotation and citation omitted). The PSR properly credited Defendant for acceptance of responsibility.