Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03458/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03458-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Kolbe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3458

___________

United States of America, *

* Appeal from the United States

Plaintiff-Appellee, * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

v. * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Robert Kolbe, *

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 13, 2004

 Filed: September 2, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Samuel Kolbe pled guilty to manufacturing, attempting to manufacture,

and aiding and abetting an attempt to manufacture five grams or more of

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. The district court1

sentenced him to 66 months, and he appeals its failure to grant him a third level

reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(b) of the 2002 United States

Sentencing Guidelines (USSG). We affirm.

Appellate Case: 03-3458 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806754 
2

Section 3E1.1(b), as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. §

3742 as amended by § 401 of the Act, 108 Pub. L. 21, 117 Stat. 650, 670, effective

April 30, 2003, now requires a motion by the United States before a sentencing

court can grant the additional third level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. 

-2-

Kolbe was indicted on February 21, 2003 for manufacturing and attempting

to manufacture more than five grams of methamphetamine. He was arraigned and

pled not guilty to the charge a few days later, and the district court entered its

standard scheduling order in the case. The order included the following language: 

the additional one level decrease for acceptance of responsibility

provided for under USSG 3E1.1(b)(2) will not be given to the defendant,

unless, notice is given to the court by no later than the close of business

fifteen (15) business days in advance of the date scheduled for trial that

a case has been settled and the defendant anticipates entering into a plea

agreement. 

The order also indicated that failure to meet the deadline would result in denial of

the third level reduction unless “exceptional circumstances are shown.”2

 

Kolbe filed a timely motion to suppress on April 7. After receiving the

government’s tardy resistence to his motion, Kolbe withdrew it and filed a written

notice of intent to plead guilty twelve business days before the May 5 trial date. At

sentencing Kolbe sought a three level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. 

The district court applied its fifteen business day rule, explaining that the rule was

necessary in order to schedule its heavy criminal caseload and to provide notice to

witnesses. The district court found no circumstances warranting an exception to the

rule and granted Kolbe a two level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. He

was sentenced to 66 months. 

On appeal Kolbe argues that the district court should have granted him a third

level reduction. He contends that the district court erred in finding that his

Appellate Case: 03-3458 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806754 
-3-

notification was not timely because it only considered its fifteen business day rule

while § 3E1.1(b) required a context specific inquiry into timeliness. He asserts that

he should have received the additional one level reduction because the government

did not have to prepare for trial and the court was able to use its resources efficiently

by scheduling another trial. He also maintains that a defendant should be able to file

a nonfrivolous pretrial motion without facing the risk of losing the third level for

acceptance of responsibility. We review a district court's findings of fact with respect

to a denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility for clear error and its

interpretation and application of the guidelines de novo. United States v. Abfalter,

340 F.3d 646, 651 (8th Cir. 2003).

Even though the district court did not refer to the motion deadline extension

Kolbe had received from the magistrate judge or to the government’s failure to file

its resistance on time, it did state that it had expended resources on scheduling

Kolbe’s trial and it found that there were no exceptional circumstances meriting

departure from its fifteen business day rule. While the district court could have made

it clearer that it had considered all the context and other circumstances raised by

Kolbe, we cannot say that it clearly erred in its factual findings or application of the

guidelines. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3458 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806754