United States v. Mays

── United States v. Mays ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-6107 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 22, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-6107 (D.C. No. 5:24-CR-00389-J-1) BRIAN KEITH MAYS, (W.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, PHILLIPS, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Brian Keith Mays argues that his sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by penalizing his decision to go to trial. Because our precedent forecloses his argument, we exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRM. Brian Keith Mays was charged with armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), as well as possessing and brandishing a firearm in After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-6107 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2026 Page: 2 furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). Mays maintained his innocence and proceeded to trial, after which a jury convicted him of both counts. The probation officer’s presentence report (PSR) calculated a total offense level of 22 under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The PSR did not include a downward adjustment under § 3E1.1(a), which provides a two-level reduction if a “defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” 1 During sentencing, Mays objected to the PSR’s omission of a § 3E1.1(a) reduction. Mays did not claim that he had accepted responsibility. Rather, he asserted that the denial of the reduction unconstitutionally punished criminal defendants who exercise their Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. 2 After noting that the cases Mays relied on do not address § 3E1.1(a), the district court overruled Mays’s objection. Mays timely filed his appeal. He argues that § 3E1.1(a) violates the Sixth Amendment by increasing the Sentencing Guidelines’ baseline offense level when defendants exercise their right to a jury trial. Mays contends that the “Constitution 1 In almost all cases, “[t]his adjustment is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt.” U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(a) cmt. n. 2 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2025). But a defendant who enters a guilty plea is not “entitled to [this] adjustment . . . as a matter of right.” Id. § 3E1.1(a) cmt. n. 3. 2 The Sixth Amendm