United States v. Phillip Schenck, 697 F. App'x 422

Phillip Schenck pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance and was sentenced to 480 months imprisonment and four years supervised release.
At sentencing the probation officer’s PSR attributed a large methamphetamine quantity to Schenck, noted two firearms, and reported meth found in his residence.
Schenck sought a three-level Guidelines reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 but contested several aspects of the PSR (drug quantity, coconspirators, and firearm accountability).
The district court denied the § 3E1.1 reduction based on Schenck’s denials of material relevant conduct and refusals to provide evidentiary support.
The court applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining premises for drug distribution, relying on the unrebutted PSR evidence.
Schenck argued his within-guidelines sentence was greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); the district court considered but implicitly overruled his mitigation arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of § 3E1.1 acceptance reduction	Schenck argued he qualified for the 3-level reduction after pleading guilty	Government argued Schenck denied material conduct and thus did not clearly accept responsibility	Court affirmed denial — defendant’s frivolous denials supported refusal to award reduction
Coercion to withdraw objections	Schenck contended the court threatened denial of acceptance to coerce withdrawal	Government: court warned about false testimony but did not coerce withdrawal	Court rejected coercion claim — no instruction to withdraw objections and court continued to consider them
§ 2D1.1(b)(12) premises enhancement	Schenck argued enhancement was improper	Government relied on PSR showing meth at residence, weekly four-ounce acquisitions, storage for sale	Court affirmed enhancement — application based on unrebutted PSR was not clearly erroneous
Substantive reasonableness under § 3553(a)	Schenck argued sentence was greater than necessary and mitigation not considered	Government: district court considered § 3553(a) factors and Schenck’s arguments and imposed a within-guidelines sentence	Court affirmed — reviewed for plain error; sentencing court’s weighing of factors stands; within-guidelines sentence presumed reasonable

Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204 (5th Cir.) (standard for reviewing denial of acceptance reduction)
Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638 (5th Cir.) (denial of acceptance reduction affirmed where defendant’s statements did not show sincere remorse)
Haines, 803 F.3d 713 (5th Cir.) (§ 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement reviewed for clear error; premises need not be solely for drug activity)
Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586 (5th Cir.) (courts may rely on unrebutted PSR findings at sentencing)
Peltier, 505 F.3d 389 (5th Cir.) (plain-error review applies when substantive reasonableness not challenged below)
Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519 (5th Cir.) (sentencing judge’s role in weighing § 3553(a) factors)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing sentencing reasonableness)