United States v. John Fortner, 491 F. App'x 692

Defendant John Fortner, alias Derrick Quillen, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine under a plea agreement, with government retaining discretion on downward departure for substantial assistance.
Post-plea, Fortner was arrested in Alabama for new drug-related conduct; his bond was revoked and the government argued his actions were inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility.
District court conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied the acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment, keeping the offense level at 31 and total offense level at 34.
Guidelines calculations: base level 28, plus 3-point increases for substantial risk and management role; with criminal history IV, range was 210–262 months, and defendant was sentenced to 210 months.
Fortner argued he acted to aid the government and thought he was assisting; the district court rejected this, finding his post-plea conduct inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility.
On appeal, Fortner contends the denial of acceptance of responsibility was error and the within-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment was erroneous	Fortner argues the post-plea conduct was for cooperative purposes and not inconsistent with responsibility.	Fortner contends his Alabama conduct was directed by the investigator or to aid the government and thus should not negate acceptance.	No clear error; district court’s denial affirmed.
Whether the within-guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable	Fortner contends the sentence was unreasonably high due to a single mistake.	Government/EGA contends the bottom-of-range sentence reflects proper consideration of 3553(a) factors.	Sentence within range not substantively unreasonable.
Whether the district court adequately resolved factual disputes about intent	Fortner claims the court failed to resolve whether his post-plea actions were intentional to obstruct or to assist.	Fortner maintains his intent was to aid the government and not obstruct.	Court’s findings supported denial of acceptance; no clear error.

United States v. Webb, 335 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2003) (great deference to the district court on acceptance of responsibility)
United States v. Banks, 252 F.3d 801 (6th Cir. 2001) (post-plea conduct related to offense may negate acceptance)
United States v. Morrison, 983 F.2d 730 (6th Cir. 1993) (post-plea conduct related to offense can affect responsibility adjustment)
United States v. Vowell, 516 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)
United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for substantive reasonableness)