United States v. Long

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 24, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40650
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DARRELL JERMAINE LONG,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-01-CR-626-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darrell Jermaine Long appeals the sentence he received
following his guilty-plea conviction for transporting aliens for
financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. He challenges
the district court’s denial of a U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 reduction for
acceptance of responsibility.
The district court denied the § 3E1.1 reduction because,
after pleading guilty and while on pretrial release in the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-40650
-2-
instant case, Long pleaded guilty to fraud charges in Georgia and
was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Long contends that
this was error, urging that, pursuant to § 3E1.1 (n.1(b)), the
determination whether a defendant accepted responsibility should
be limited to the offense of conviction and to conduct related to
the offense of conviction.
Long concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our opinion
in United States v. Watkins, 911 F.2d 983, 985 (5th Cir. 1990).
In Watkins, we rejected the precise argument that Long now
asserts and held that the application note to § 3E1.1 was
“phrased in general terms and does not specify that the defendant
need only refrain from criminal conduct associated with the
offense of conviction in order to qualify for the reduction.”
Id. One panel of this court may not ignore or overrule a prior
panel decision. See United States v. Ruiz, 180 F.3d 675, 676
(5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --