## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 12

- 3552 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. T R I S T AN D AV IS, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on. No . 2:11cr182-001

—Jam es T. Moo dy, Ju dge
.
S UB MI TT ED M AR CH 15, 2013

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 9, 2013

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd M A NI ON a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . T r i s t a n Da v i s r e peate dl y g a v e f a l s e a ddress es w hen purchasi ng g uns, si x of w hi ch w er e l ate r re covere d fr om per sons w ho co uld notl aw fully pos ses s them

. Da vis c onte nd s that the guns w er e s tol en fro m hi m . He pl ea ded gu il tyt o t wo c o unt s o fl y i ngt o g un deal er s. 18 U

. S. C. §§ 922( a) ( 6) , 92 4( a) ( 1) ( A )

. Otherchar ges wer e di smi ss ed as pa r t o fa pl ea b ar g ain.2 N o. 12

- 3552 Davi s w as sente nced to 18 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. H is offen se lev el, an d p er h ap s th e sen te n c e to o , w ou ld h av e b ee n low e r h ad th e d ist ric t jud ge giv en h im a three

- l eve l r educti on f oracc epti ng r esponsibi l i ty by ple adingg u ilty. I t deducted onl y tw o l eve l s, bec ause th e pros e c u t or dec line d to m ove for the su btrac tion of a thi rd l eve l under U.S

. S. G. §3E1. 1( b)

. The p ro secuto r w an te d D av is t o w aiv e h is rig h t t o a p p ea l, an d h is re fu sa l to d o t h at led th e p ro se c u to r to w ith h old th e m o ti o n. Da vi s contends tha t a m o ti o n fr o m the pr o s e c ut o r i s ma nd a t o r y wh e ne v e r the de fen da ntp l e a ds gui l ty ear l y e nough to spar e the pro secutorthe burden o ft r i a l p r e p a r a t i o n, b u th e a c k n o wl e d g e s th a twe rej ec te d th a t c o n te n tio n inU nited Sta tes v. D eberry, 57 6 F. 3d 708 ( 7t h Ci r. 20 09) , wh i ch hol ds that §3E1. 1( b) co nfer s ane nti tl ementon t hepros e cu t or, noto n the defendant. In thi s r espect§3 E1. 1( b) functi ons l i ke the pr ose c u t o r ’ s e n t i t l e me n t t o mo v e f o r a b e l o w- mi n i mum s en te nc e. S ee U

. S

. S

. G. § 5K1

. 1. The pr o se cut o r may wi th

hol d such a m oti on f orany re aso n th at d oes notvi olat e t h e C on st itu tio n . Wa de v

. U nited Sta tes , 50 4 U.S

. 18 1 (1992). D e b e r ry con clud ed th at §3E 1.1( b) shou ld be u nd ersto od the sam e way, with the sa m e l i m i t. Two c o ur ts o fa ppea l s ha ve sid ed wi thDa vi s’ s co nt en ti on tha t a c o ur t may di r e c t the pr o s e c ut o r t o fi l e a m oti on under § 3E1. 1( b) ev en i f t h e prose cutor ’ s r easo n forwi thho l di ngtha t m o ti o n do es no t vi o l at e th e C on st itu tio n . U nited Sta tes v. Lee, 65 3 F

. 3d 170, 174–75 ( 2d C ir. 20 11 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i ve ns , 65 0 F

. 3d 343, 34 6–47 ( 4th Ci r. 20 11)

. Fo ur co urts of a p p eal s hav e r eached the s am e co ncl usi on a s D eberry

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Col l i ns ,N o. 12

- 3552 3 68 3 F .3d 6 9 7 (6 th C ir. 20 12 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 58 1 F.3 d 99 4, 10 03 (9t h C ir. 20 09 ); U nite d State s v. B eatty, 538 F. 3d 8, 16 –17 ( 1stCi r. 20 08) ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. N e wson , 515 F.3d 37 4, 37 8

– 7 9 (5 th C ir. 20 08 ). Th is ci r cui t co ul d no t el i m i na te the c o nfl i ctb y c ha ng i ng si des, so st are d ecis is supports st anding pat. Reso l uti on ofthi s co nfl i ct i s the pro vi nce o fthe Suprem e Cour t o r the S entencing Com m i ssi on. S ee B uc hm eier v. U n i ted Sta tes , 581 F.3d 561 , 566 (7th C ir. 2009) (en ban c). A FFI RMED

R OV NER, C i r cu i tJudg e, conc urring. A s the cou rt correct l y o bs er ve s, a nd a s Dav i s hi m se l fr ec o g ni ze s, the ou t c om e o f th is a p p ea l is co n tr olle d by ou r d ec isio n in U nited Sta tes v. D eberry , 576 F.3d 708 ( 7th Cir. 2009). I a ccept a nd r espect D eberryas the l aw o fthi s ci rcui t. Iwri te sep ar ate l y, however, to expl ai n w hy Ido not bel i eve thatse cti on 3 E1. 1( b ) o f the Gu i del i nes per m i ts th e g ov er n m en t t o in s i s t t h at a d efe n d an t w aiv e h is ap p ella te righ ts be for e it w i l l a sk th e c ou rtto gra n t h im an addit i onalo ne- l eve l decr eas e in hi s o ffen se l eve l f oracc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty. F o r a de fen dan t who wai ve s hi s r i g htt o a t r i ala nd pl ea ds g ui l ty, the r i g htt o a n a ppea l r emai ns i m po r ta nt4 N o. 12

- 3552 pri m ar i l y a s a m eans to ad d re ss any er ro rs thatm ay oc c ur a t hi s s e nt e nc i ng . ( I a m s e t t i ng a s i de the m uch sm al l erse t o fcas es i n w hi ch a defe n d an t m ay have a l egi ti m ate gr ound on w hi ch to chall enge the v al i dity o fhi s g ui l typl ea . ) Ob vi o us l y, a de fen dan t and h i s co unselcann ot kno w wh ethersuch a se ntenci ng er ro r has occur re d untilhe i s a ctual l y s ente n c ed . Yet, we as appell ate j ud ges kno w thatsuch e rr or s o ccur w i th r egu lar ity . Se n te n c in g jud ge s m u st ap p ly a rela tiv ely com p lex set of guide line s to the u niq ue f a cts su rro und i ng a de fen dant’s cr i m i nal co nd uct and hi sto ry ; and fo l l owing that, theym ust ind ependentl y dete rm i ne, in ligh t o f br oa d er st at u to ry cr ite r ia, see1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 553( a) , w h at they bel i eve to be a r eas onabl e s entence
. I n doi ng so , j ud ges m ay m i sapprehend th e e vi dence, l o o kt o th e wr o n gg u i d e l i n e , mi s c o n s t r u e th e r e l e v a nt gui del i ne, i ncor re ctl y a pp l y t he gui del i ne to the f acts, f a i l t o h o n o r a d e fe n d a n t ’ s p r o c e d u r a l r i g h t s i n s o me w ay, f ai l to r eco gni ze the e xtent o fthei r disc re ti on, o r i m po se a se nt en ce th at i s su bs ta nt i ve ly unr ea so nabl e. W e r ou tin ely vacat e s entence s a nd r em and fo r r es en te nc i ngt o c o r r ec t th es e an d ot he r k i nds o fs en tenci ng er ro rs . These er ro rs ar e rar el y, i fev er, at tr ibu ta b le t o t h e d efe n d an t; th e re sp on sib ility ty p ica lly l i es w i th the co urt, so m eti m es w i th the kno w i ng o r unknow i ng co m pli ci ty ofthe att or neys. Cor re cti on o f su che r r o r s s e r v e s b o th th e d e fe n d a n t ’ s r i g h tt o d ue pr o ce ss an d a publ i c i nt er es t i n f ai r an d ac cur ate se ntenci ng. In s um , r ese rv i ng the defendant’s r i ght t o ra i se sent enci ng er ro rs o n appeal has abso l utel y no thi ng to do w i th hi s a cceptance o fr esponsibi l i ty f orhi s cri m e.N o. 12

- 3552 5 A nd , co nver sel y, i nsi stin g that he w ai ve hi s r i ght t o ap p ea l b efo re h e m ay re c eiv e th e m ax im u m c r e d it und erthe Gu id elines f oracc epti ng r esponsibi l i ty ser ves none o fthe i nter est s i denti fi ed i n sec ti on 3 E1. 1. W hen se cti on 3 E1. 1( b) was am en ded byse cti on 4 01( g) o fthe Pr o se cut o r i alRe m edi es a nd Othe r Tool s to End the Explo i tat i on o f Ch i l dren Today A ct o f20 03, P. L. 108- 21, 117 Stat

. 650, 671-72 (A p r. 30, 2003 ) (the “P R O T E C T A ct”), the a uthor ity to as ses s a defendant’s qual i fi cati on f or the e xtra r educti on i n hi s o ffen se l eve l f oracc eptance o fr es po ns ibi l i tywas t r an sfer r ed f r o m the s en te nc i ng j ud ge to the g ove rnm ent. A n d wh at previ ousl y had be ena mandat o r y r edu ct i o n, p ro vi ded th e defen dan t m et the c ri ter i a f ori t, becam e a r educti on dependent on th e g o ve r nm en t’ s un il atera l de ci si o n t o r eque sti t o fthe c ou rt
. D eberry, 5 76 F

. 3d at7 10

. I n D e b e rry, we l i kened th e br ea dtho fthe g o ve r nm en t’ s di scretioni n de ci di ng w h et h er to so licitth e re d u c tio n to its w i d e la tit u d e in requ esting a sen ten ce red uc tion base d on a d efend an t’s subst an ti alas si sta nce i n the i nvest i gat i on o r pros ecuti on o f an ot h er p er so n, see1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 ( e ) ; F e d

. R

. C r i m. P. 35 ( b) ; U

. S. S. G. § 5 K 1. 1, and i n d eci ding w hether an d h ow to c harg e the defendant i n the fi rs t instance
. 576 F. 3d at 710- 11. Ye t, th e g o v e r n me n t ’ s d i s c r e t i o n wi th r e s p e c tt o the extr a redu cti on f oracc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty i s no t unl i m i te d. As we a ckno wl edg ed i n D eber ry, the g o ve r nm ent m ay not re fus e to re com m end the r educti on f or an inv i d i o u s r e as on or for a re as on “u n re lat ed to a leg itim ate go ver nm entalo bj ec tive. ” 5 76 F. 3d at 711. Those6 N o. 12

- 3552

w er e t h e s ole lim ita tio n s t h at th e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s d ec isi o n in Wa de v . U nited Sta tes , 5 0 4 U. S

. 1 8 1 , 1 8 5

- 8 6 , 11 2 S

. Ct

. 1 84 0, 1 84 3- 44 ( 19 92 ) , i m po se d o n the g o ve r nm en t’ s po wer to r eque st a se nt en ce r edu ct i o n f o r the de fe nd a nt ’ s s ub s t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e pu r s ua nt t o 1 8 U.S

. C. § 3 55 3(e ) an d U .S.S.G . § 5K 1.1 . Re l y i n g on th e n ea rly unbri dle d discr eti on that the Wadestandard re ser ved to th e g ov er n m en t, w e c on c lu d ed th at it w as p er m i ss ible for th e govern m en t to con d iti on i ts assen t to extra cred it for accep tan ce of respon sibil ity on the d efend an t’s agr eem ent t o w ai ve hi s a pp ella te ri ghts. 57 6 F

. 3d at 711. W e r ea so ne d tha t ana ppea l wai ve r woul d s par e th e gov er nm ent the nee d to defe nd the defen d an t’s convi ct ion and sent en ce on ap p eal; and the gove rnm en t’s w i s h t o a v o i d the c o s ta nd u nc e r t a i nty a s s o c i a t e d wi th an appeal“was a l egit im at e desi re , cl ose l y r el ate d to th e e x p re ss cr ite ria in s u b se c tio n (b)” of th e g u id elin e. Id. But, g i ve n the l an g ua g e o fs ec ti o n 3 E1. 1. , I b el i ev e th e l i m i tat i ons on the go ver nm ent’ s di scr eti on a re gr eat er th anwe r ec o g ni ze d i n D eberry

. Al thoughthe P RO TE CT Act m ade the g o ve r nm en t th e arbi te r o fwhethe r a de fen dant ought to re cei ve the e xtra r educti on f oracc eptance of re sp on sib ility , s ee 5 7 6 F.3d at 710, the straightforwar d t er m s o fb o ththe g ui del ine an d the a cc o m pan y i ng c o mme n t a r y s p e c i fy th e c r i t e r i a th a tc o n t r o l th e g o v e r nm ent’ s a sse ssm en t. Su bsec ti on (b) o fthe gui del i ne desc r ibe s th e m o ti o n tha t m us t be fi l ed bythe g o ve r nm en t s oli ci tingthe r edu ct i o n a s o ne “ st at i ngtha t th e defe nd ant has assi ste d author i ti es i n the i nvest i gat i on orpro secuti on o fhi s o w n m i sco nd uct by t i m e l y n ot i f yi ng authorit ie s of his int ent ion to e nte r a p le a of guil ty, t hereb yN o. 12

- 3552 7 p e r mi t t i n g t h e g o v e r n me n t t o a v o i d p r ep a r i n g f o r t r i a l an d per m it ti n g the gover nm entand the court to all ocate thei r re sourc es e

ff ici ent ly

. ” ( Em phasi s m i ne. ) The pl ai n f ocus of thi s l anguage i s o n the defe nd ant’ s t i m el y no ti fi cati on that he i ntends to pl ead gui l ty, an a ct which s pares both the gove rnm en t and the cou rt the n e e d to prep are f ortr i al

. A pp l i cati on N ote 6 re i nfo rces the point wh en i t obser ves:

. . . I n gene ra l, the co nd uct qual i fyi ng f ora decrea se in offen se level un d er sub sect io n ( b) w il l occu r particularly earl y i n th e case. F o r e xa m p le, to qu ali fy und ersubse c tion ( b) , the defe nd ant m ust hav e noti fi ed author i ti es of hi s i ntenti on to enter a p lea ofgui l ty at a s uffi ci entl y e ar l y poin t in the proce ss s o th a t t h e g o v e r n me n t may a v o i d p r ep a r i n g f o r t r i al an d t hec our tm ay s ch e dul ei t s c al e ndare f f i ci e nt l y. Because th e [ g] ove rnm ent i s in the bestposi ti on to deter m i ne wh etherthe defe nd an t h as ass i ste d author itie s i n a m ann e rt hatavo i ds prepar i ng f ort r i al , an adj ustm ent under subsect i on (b) m ay onl y b e g r an te d upo n a f o r m almot i o n b y the [ g ] o ve r nm en t at the t i m e o fse ntenci ng. § 3 B1. 1, com m ent. ( n. 6. ) ( em phasi s m i ne) ( ci tat i on o m i tte d)

. The b ac k g r o und c o m m en tary adds tha t a defen dan t who ha s met the c r i t e r i a s e t f o r th i n s ub s e c t i o n ( b ) “has ac ce pte d r es po ns ibi l i tyi n a waytha t en su re s th e cer tainty of his j us t pu nish m en t in a ti m ely m an ne r, ther eby appropri ate l y m e r i t i ng an ad d itio n a l red u c tio n .” (E m p h as is m in e.)8 N o. 12

- 3552 Se cti on 3 E1. 1( b) i s thu s expli ci t about w hat co nd uct w a r r a nt s the f avorab le exercise of th e govern m en t’s disc re ti on. I n that re sp ect, as the Four th Ci rcui t pointed o uti n U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i ve ns , 65 0 F.3 d 34 3, 34 5- 46 ( 4th Ci r . 2 0 1 1 ) , s e c t i o n 3 E1

. 1 ( b ) s t a nd s i n c o nt r a s tt o se cti on 5 K 1. 1, wh i ch suppli es no m eani ngful sta nd ar d by w hi ch the gov er nm en t i s t o deter m i ne wh etherthe defen dan t ha s pr o vi ded su bs ta nt i ala ss i st an ce i n the i nve st iga tio n or p ro se c u tio n of an ot h e r p er so n . See al so 18 U. S

. C. § 3 55 3( e)

. I t was i n the abs en ce ofs ucha st an dar d thatthe S upr eme Co ur t co nc l ude d i n Wade that the g ove rnm ent’ s wide d isc re ti on i s bo und ed sol el y b y i ts obl i gation not t o engag e in i nvi dio us di scri m i nati on o r re ly on a ra ti onal e that i s unre l ate d to a l egi ti m ate go ver nm ent obj ecti ve. 50 4 U.S

. at18 5- 86, 11 2 S

. C t. at 18 43

- 44

. S ec ti o n 3 E1. 1. , b y c i tingb o ththe cond u c t (the ti m el y a nnouncem ent o fthe defe nd ants’ in te n t t o p lea d gu ilty ) an d c o r r es p on d in g b en efit ( re l i evi ng t h e gove rnm ent o fthe need to pre pare f or tr ial a n d cle ar in g t h e c ou rt ’s c ale n d ar ) w h ich w ill “m er i t[ ] ” a n additi onalr educti on i n the offense l ev el, pl ac es mor e si g ni fi ca ntl i m its o n the g o ve r nm ent’ s a uthor i ty. The go ver nm ent “ re tai ns di scr eti on to deter m i ne w heth erthe defe nd ant’s a ssi sta nce has r el i e v e d i t o f pr e pa r i ng f o r tr i al

. ” D i ve ns , 65 0 F

. 3d at 346 (em p h as is in orig in al); s e e a l so A l e x a C h u C l i n t o n, C o mm en t, Ta m ing the Hyd ra: P rosec uto ria l D iscret io n U nd er t heAcc ept anc eof

Re s ponsibility Prov i s i on of t heU
. S. Se ntenci ng G uid elines , 79 U

. Chi. L. Rev. 14 67, 14 99- 1510 ( 2012 ) ( disc ussi ng wh at i nter est s r el ate d to t he co nser vati o n o ft r i alr es o ur ce s m i g hta ppr o priatel y b e co n-N o. 12

- 3552 9 si dered i n exer ci se ofgo ver nm ent’ s di scr etion u nd erse ct i o n 3 E 1 .1(b )). B u t o n c e ith as an sw er ed th at qu es tio n in the a ffi rm ati ve, it is obl i ged to m ove f orthe add i ti onal r educti o n; i t m ayno t r equi r e m o r e o fthe de fen dan t than the gui del i ne i tse l fdoes , i ncl ud i ng i n part icul ar a w aiv e r o f th e d efe n d an t’s righ t t o a p p ea l. See i d. at34 8- 50 ; see also U nit e d S ta tes v. Lee, 65 3 F

. 3d 170, 17 3- 75 ( 2d Cir

. 20 11 ) ( gov er nm ent m ay not w i thhol d m oti on ba s e d o n de fe nd a nt ’ s c ha l l e ng e t o p r e s e nt e nc e r e po r t, w hich nec essitate evid en tiary hearing). Se c tio n 3E 1.1 sa ys n ot h in g a b ou t a d efe n d an t’s w ill i ngness to w ai ve h is r i ght t o an appealnorthe i nter est s th a ts u c h a wa i v e r s e r v e s . C e r t a i n l y th e g o v e r nm en t m ay h ave l egi ti m ate r eas ons to w ant s uch a waiv er : as D eberryr ec o gn i ze s, the wai ve r s par es the g o ve r nm en t th e bur dena nd un ce r ta i nty o fde fen di ng the j udg m en t o n ap p eal, 5 76 F

. 3d at7 11 ; the wai ve r a l so ha s th e saluta ry effect of cleari ng our ow n ap p eals ca le n d ar. Bu t the se ar e inter est s which a re bo th unm enti oned by th e gu ideline an d its com m en tary an d w hi c h a re m ea ni ng ful l y di sti nc t f r o m the i nt er es ts tha t ar e m en ti oned. The gui del i ne and com m en ta ry d o not speak to th e u niverse of acts th at m ight ease the gove rnm en t’s ( o r the j udi ci ar y ’ s) b ur deno r whi chpr o m ote th e effi ci ent re sol uti on of cri m i nal case s. To sta te th e o bvi ous, the gui del i ne i s a i m ed a t the defendant’s acc e p t a n c e o fr e s p o n s ib i l i t y f o r h i s o ffe n s e , n o tth e s t r e a ml i ni ng o fpro secuto ri aland j ud i ci aldocke ts. I t i s true , a s o th er c our ts ha ve po i nt ed o ut, tha t th e gui del i ne does m enti on the effi ci ent alloc ati on o fr e-10 N o. 12

- 3552

so u rc es . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Col l i ns , 68 3 F

. 3d 697, 70 6 ( 6 t h C ir.), cert. denied , 133 S. C t. 57 1 (2 01 2); U ni t e d S t ates v. Johns on , 58 1 F

. 3d 994, 10 06 ( 9th Ci r. 20 09)

. But i t doe s so in a sp ec ific c on te x t, d es c rib in g a d efe n d an t w h o is el i gibl e forthe extr a r educti on a s o ne wh o, as a re su lt ofgi vi ng ti m el y no ti ce o fh is i ntent to ple ad gui l ty, re l i eve s the go ver nm ent o fthe burden of tr ialpre paration an d perm its both th e govern m en t a n d t h e cou rt to al l oca te thei r re sour ces effi ci entl y. The pro vi si on a s w ri tte n i s cl ear l y focuse d o n the effi ci enci es gained by not havi ng to pre pare f ortr i al. See i d. a t1 0 0 8

- 1 1 ( M
. D. Sm ith, J. , conc urring in p art & d is sen ting in pa rt); La ura W at er s, N ot e, A Pow e ran d a D uty: Pr os e cu t or ial D i s cre t i on an d Ob l ig a t i o n i n Un i t e d S t a t e s S e n t e n c i n gG u i d e l i ne § 3E 1.1( b) , 34 Cardozo L. Rev. 813, 829 (20 12 ). Those effi ci en ci es a r e depe ndento n the t i m el i ne ss o fa de fen dant’s decl ar ati on o fhi s intent to ple ad gui l ty; o ther effi ci en ci es , i nc l udi ngtho se r es ul tingfr o m a de fen dan t’s w il ling ne ss to foreg o h is right to ap p ell ate review , are not so ti m e- depend ent. I n s ho r t, the g ui del i ne a nd c o m m en ta r y f o cus ex p licitl y a nd excl usi vel y o n avo i ding the ne ed to prepa r e f o r t r i a l ( a nd c l e a r i ngthe di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s t ri al ca l en dar )

. N o p r o ce edingo r e ve nttha t m i g hto cc ur l ate r i s m enti oned orev en hi nted at. The gui del i ne’ s s i l ence as to the tw o pri nci pal ev ents that tak e pl ace afterthe defe nd ant’ s guil t i s dete rm i ned

— sente nci ng and appeal

— i s bo thunde r st an d abl e an d l ogi c al

. A defendant knows w hat cr i m es he has orhas n otco m m itt ed an d th u s is en tir ely ab le, w ith ou t a tria l,N o. 12

- 3552 11
to accept re sponsibi l i ty fo r hi s cr i m i nal behav i orby pl e a d i n gg u i l t y . B u tth e r e s p o n s ib i l i t y t o d e t e r m i ne w hat s entence sho uld b e im posed on the defendant f or h is c rim e b elo n gs to th e jud ge an d t h e jud ge alon e. See Lee, 65 3 F

. 3d at 174. A d efendant ty pica l l y doe s no t know i n advance what the sent en ce wil l be, norcan h e k n ow w h et h er th e c ou rtw ill com m it s o m e e rro r in the s entencing pro cess unti l t h e s entencing has tak en pl ac e. Onl y the n c anhe kno w w he th er th ere i s a g r o und for ap p ea l. (A ga in, Iam se tt in g a sid e p ot en tia l ch all enges to the ple a. ) H e ca n ofco urse waiv e hi s r i ght t o chal l enge on appeal the re aso nabl eness of th e s en tence and any se ntenci ng er ro rs the c ou rt m ay have m ade, but that w ai verhas nothi ng wh ats oev erto do with acce pt a n c e o fr e s p o n s ib i l i t y f o r h i s o wnc o n d u c t
. A d e f en dant has a r i ght t o be s entence d accura tel y a nd f ai rl y. No thing i n s e c t i o n 3 E1

. 1 r e qu i r e s the de fe nd a ntto accept re sponsibi l i ty f ort h e cour t’ s e rr or s a s wel l as hi s o wn. W here , as her e, the gov ernm ent has decl i ned to m ove f o r a s ec ti o n 3 E1. 1(b) r edu ct i o n s o l ely b ec au se the de fen dant has no t e xecuted an a pp eal s w aiv er , i t has abuse d its lim i ted di scr eti on under the gui del i ne. I n such an i nstance the cour t ca n, and i nd eed m ust, gr ant the defenda ntthe e xt r a r edu ct i o n in h i s o ffen se l ev elno twi th

sta nd i ng the absen ce o fa m oti on fro m the gov er nm ent. See D eberry, 5 76 F

. 3d at7 11 (w he re go ve r nm en t ha s wi th

hel d m oti on o n i l l egi ti m ate gr ound, the c ourt “m ust i gnor e the absence ofthe m oti on”)

. Ir eco gni ze that, gi ven the s u b sta nti alse ntenci ng di scr eti on di str i ct c ourt s enj oy now that U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 54 3 U.S

. 22 0, 12 512 N o. 12

- 3552 S. Ct. 73 8 ( 2005 ) , has re nd er ed the G uidel i nes a dvis or y, a se nt en cingj udg e m aye ffec ti ve l y g r an t a defend an t m o r e cr edi t f o r h is acce pta nc e o fr es po ns ibi l i tytha n the go ve rn m en t h as ch os en to d o. See D eberry, 5 76 F. 3d at 71 1

. No ne the l e s s , a de fe nd a nt ha s a r i g ht t o the co rr ect ap p lica tio n o ft h e G u id elin es in t h e firs t in st an c e, see G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 55 2 U.S . 3 8, 49 , 5 0 n.6 , 12 8 S

. Ct. 58 6, 59 6 & n .6 (20 07 ); U nited Sta tes v. G lo sser, 6 23 F. 3d 413, 418 (7th Cir. 2010); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ne l s on , 4 91 F .3d 34 4, 3 47(7t h C ir. 20 07 ); see also Wat e r s , 3 4 Ca r do z o L. R e v . at 84 0-4 1, an d in m y v iew , th at inc lu d es a rig h t t o a n ad d iti o na l o ne - l ev elr edu ct i o n in h is offen se l ev elwhenhe h as sa tis f i e d t h e c rit er ia s et fort h in s ec tio n 3E 1.1 (b ). See T zip or ah Sc h w ar tz T ap p , Re c en t D ev elo p m en t, Ref us i ng to Co m pare A pples and O ranges : W hy the Fourth Circ uit Got ItRighti n U ni ted S tat es v. Div ens, 90 N
. C. L. Rev. 1267, 12 73 & nn. 43

- 44 ( 2012 ) ( noti ng tha t, i n pract i ce, extr a o ne- l eve l r educti on i n offense l eve l pursuant to sect i on 3 E1. 1( b) r ai ses r educti on in se ntence f oracce pta nc e o f r es po ns ibi l i tyfr o m 2 0 to 2 8 per ce nt ) ( ci ting R ica rd o J. B as c u as , The Am e r i ca n Inq ui s i t i on: Se nt e nc i ng A fter th e Federa l G uid elines , 45 W ake Fo re st L. Rev. 1, 42

- 43 (2010)). Iwoul d a d d , fi na l l y, tha t i n v i ew o fthe di vi si o n o fthe ci rcui ts on th is q u est i on, and the re gul ar i ty w i th wh i ch the g ove rnm ent s eek s a pp ealwa ive rs, thi s i s a subj ect tha two ul d g e nu i ne l y b e ne fi tfr o m t he fur the r g ui dance o fthe S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n.

4- 9- 13