Denisha Pore pled guilty to one count of wire fraud and was sentenced to 125 months in prison. On appeal, she contends that the district court erred by refusing to grant an offense-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

We will affirm the sentencing court’s decision not to give credit for acceptance of responsibility “unless it is without foundation, a standard of review more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 518 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The record shows that Pore violated a condition of pretrial release by possessing a computer. More significantly, the presentence report recounted ample, reliable, and unrebutted evidence to show, for present purposes, that Pore embarked on a new fraud scheme after her arrest for the instant fraud offense. These are grounds for denying credit for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Rickett, 89 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir. 1996). The decision to deny credit for acceptance was not without a foundation. See Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 211. The judgment is AFFIRMED.