United States v. Chu, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9235

Chu pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy in 2012;
While detained pre-sentencing he repeatedly attempted to smuggle drugs into the MDC;
District Court denied acceptance-of-responsibility credit based on post-plea conduct;
Guidelines calculation included 2.5 kg of heroin as relevant conduct;
Sentence imposed was 87 months at the bottom of a Guideline range based on 2.5 kg and other factors;

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
denial of acceptance of responsibility would be reviewed	Chu (Chu) argues he deserved the 2-level reduction	Chu contends post-plea conduct should not preclude credit	No error; denial affirmed
whether 2.5 kg heroin was properly considered	Chu asserts only 60 g were charged; no hearing	Court could consider relevant conduct by preponderance	Proper to consider additional quantities; no procedural error
substantive reasonableness of sentence	Chu argues sentence excessive given conduct	Sentence within range; not an outlier	Not substantively unreasonable; affirmed

United States v. Defeo, 36 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 1994) (relevance of attempted drug smuggling to acceptance of responsibility)
United States v. Lagasse, 87 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 1996) (attempted smuggling can negate acceptance of responsibility)
Olvera v. United States, 954 F.2d 788 (2d Cir. 1992) (addiction evidence insufficient to overcome denial of responsibility)
United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2005) (relevance of conduct for sentencing under 1B1.3)
United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for procedural reasonableness review of Guidelines)
United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reasonableness)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review framework for sentences)
United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (within-Guidelines sentence not shockingly high)
Dor v. Olvera, — (—) ((cited for acceptance-of-responsibility standard))