Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01235/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01235-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Rebecca Sue Worth
Appellant

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. 05-1235

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Rebecca Sue Worth, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 30, 2005

Filed: October 17, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rebecca Worth appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after she

pleaded guilty to a drug charge and failure to appear. She argues that the district

court erred in refusing to grant a 3-level reduction in her offense level for acceptance

of responsibility. We affirm.

Worth was originally indicted in February 2004 for conspiring to manufacture

methamphetamine. In April she notified the court of her intention to plead guilty, and

Appellate Case: 05-1235 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2005 Entry ID: 1963853
-2-

a change-of-plea hearing was scheduled. Worth failed to appear for the April 14

hearing, absconded from supervision, and fled the area. She was arrested in June

after allegedly having committed other crimes. A July 2004 superseding indictment

charged Worth with the original conspiracy offense and with failing to appear. Worth

pleaded not guilty in July, and trial was set for September, but in August 2004 she

pleaded guilty to both counts.

At sentencing, the government stated its position that Worth should receive an

acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, despite her obstruction of justice by failing

to appear, because the nature of her cooperation made her case “extraordinary” within

the meaning of Application Note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The government conceded

in its brief that it made a motion under § 3E1.1(b). At sentencing, the government

stated that Worth’s guilty plea was untimely with respect to the original trial schedule

but timely as to the new trial date, and that the government had never begun preparing

for trial. The court concluded that this was “an extremely tight call,” because Worth’s

failure to appear did not occur early in the investigation and she did not voluntarily

terminate her obstructive conduct, but she had not denied the obstructive conduct, she

had pleaded guilty to the underlying offense, and she had offered assistance in the

investigation of her own and other crimes; in this “unusual situation,” the court

granted her a 2-level reduction. 

We review for clear error the denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility

reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5) (sentencing court is entitled to great

deference on review because it is in unique position to evaluate defendant’s

acceptance of responsibility); United States v. Perez, 270 F.3d 737, 739 (8th Cir.

2001) (clear-error standard of review), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 945 (2002). A

defendant is entitled to a 2-level reduction in offense level if she “clearly

demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for [her] offense,” see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a),

and to a third level if the government states that the defendant has assisted in the

investigation or prosecution of her own misconduct by timely notifying authorities

Appellate Case: 05-1235 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2005 Entry ID: 1963853
-3-

of her intention to plead guilty, “thereby permitting the government to avoid

preparing for trial and permitting the government and the court to allocate their

resources efficiently,” see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). In determining whether a third level

of reduction is warranted, the court’s inquiry should be “context specific,” and should

consider the timeliness of the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, including

whether the government has been able to avoid preparing for trial and whether the

court has been able to schedule its calendar efficiently. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1,

comment. (n.6). A defendant who has received the 2-level reduction is entitled to the

third level if the plea was sufficiently timely. See United States v. Rice, 184 F.3d

740, 742 (8th Cir. 1999). 

Here, although the government stated that it had not undertaken trial

preparation, the court’s allocation of resources was affected by Worth’s actions: her

flight required cancelling her scheduled plea hearing, and her July 2004 not-guilty

plea required scheduling a trial before she decided to plead guilty in August. We

conclude the district court did not clearly err in denying the third level of reduction.

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1235 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/17/2005 Entry ID: 1963853