FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT AUGUST 3, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10543 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -001 52 -C R -A -N U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s H A R O L D O L E N D A P E A G L E R , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 3, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: H a r ol d O l e ndaP e a gl e rappe a l s hi s 120- m onth s e nt e nc e , i m pos e d a f t e rhe pl e d gui l tyt o tw o c ount s of be i ng af

e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm a nd one c ount2

o f b e i n g af

e l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f

a mmu n i t i o n , a l l i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) . O n ap p e a l, P e a g le ra r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in f a ilin g to appl ya n a ddi t i ona l one - l e ve l r e duc t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty , pur s ua nt to U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 ( b ) , b e c au s e h e tim e lyn o tif ie d th e g o v e rn m e n t o f

h is in te n t to p le a d g u ilty , th e r e b ya llo w in g th e g o v e rn m e n t to a v o id p r e p a r in g f o rtr ia l. P ea gl erconcedes thatthe go vernm enthas the sol e di sc re t i on t o m ov e f or a one - l e ve l r e duc t i on pur s ua ntt o § 3E 1. 1( b) a nd a c know l e dge s tha tw e ha ve in d icated th at w e w il l n o t d istu rb a s en ten ce b as ed so lely o n th e g o v ern m en t’ s f a ilu r e to m o v e f

o rs u c h ar e d u c tio n . N o n e th e le s s , P e a g le ra r g u e s th a t w e s h o u ld b e ab le to c o rr e c t ad e f

e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e w h e r e , a s h e r e , th e g o v e rn m e n t ab u s e s its di s c r e t i on i n f

a i l i ng t o m ove f

orar e duc t i on ba s e d on i t s e xt e ns i ve pr e pa r a t i on f or s e n te n c in g . W e r e vi e w the f

i ndi ngs bythe di s tr i c tc ourtr e ga r di ng ar e duc t i on f or a c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i tyf

orc l e a re rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a l hoon, 97 F . 3d 518, 5 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . A d e f e n d a n t b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f e s tab lis h in g th a t h e is e nt i t l e d t o ar e duc t i on f

ora c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S aw ye r, 18 0 F . 3d 13 19 , 13 23 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). T he gui de l i ne s pr ovi de f ortw o s e pa r a t e r e duc t i ons f ora c c e pt a nc e of resp o n si b i l i ty: ( a ) I f th e d e f e n d a n t c le a r lyd e m o n s tr a te s a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility3

fo r h i s o ffen se, d ecrease the o ffen se l ev el b y 2 l ev el s. ( b) I f the de f e nda ntqua l i f

i e s f orade c r e a s e unde rs ubs e c t i on ( a ) , the o f f e n s e le v e l d e te rm in e d p r io rto th e o p e r a tio n o f s u b s e c tio n ( a ) is l evel 16 or grea t er , and u po n m ot i on of the go vernm entst at i ng that the de f e nda ntha s a s s i s t e d author i t i e s i n the i nve s t i ga t i on or pr os e c ut i on of

hi s ow n m i s c onduc tbyt i m e l ynot i f y i ng author i t i e s of hi s i nt e nt i on t o e nt e rapl e aof gui l ty , the r e bype rm i tt i ng the gove rnm e ntt o a voi d pr e pa r i ng f ortr i a l a nd pe rm i tt i ng the gove rnm e nt a nd the c ourtt o a l l oc a t e the i rr e s our c e s e f f i c i e nt l y , de c r e a s e the o f f e n s e le v e l b y1 a d d itio n a l le v e l. U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1 . 1 (em p h asi s ad d ed ). “ B ecau se th e G o v ern m en ti s i n th e b est po si t i on t o d et erm i ne w hether the defendanthas a ss i st ed autho ri t i es i n a m anner tha ta voi ds pr e pa r i ng f

ortr i a l , a n a dj us tm e ntunde rs ubs e c t i on ( b) m a yonl ybe g r a n te d u p o n af

o rm a l m o tio n b yth e G o v e rn m e n t a t th e tim e o f s e n te n c in g .” I d ., com m ent . (n. 6) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). W e have re j ec t ed a defe nd ant ’ s c l ai m for an a ddi t i ona l one - l e ve l r e duc t i on pur s ua ntt o § 3E 1. 1( b) w he r e the r e w a s no gove rnm e ntm ot i on f

i l e d i n s upportof

s uc h ar e duc t i on. U . S . v. W a de , 458 F . 3d 12 73 , 12 82 (11th C i r. 20 06 ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 7 S . C t . 20 96 (200 7). Itap p ears, h o w ev er, th atw e are n o tp recl u d ed fro m rev i ew i n g fo r an ab u se o f d is c r e tio n th e g o v e rn m e n t’s r e f u s a l to f ile am o tio n f

o rar e d u c tio n p u r s u a n t to § 3E 1. 1( b) . S e e W a de v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 504 U . S . 181, 185- 86, 112 S . C t . 1840, 18 44 , 11 8 L . E d. 2d 52 4 (19 92 ) ( ho l di ng , i n the cont extof a m ot i on for s ub st ant i al as sistan ce , th at “fed er al d istrict co u rts h av e a u th o rity to re v iew a p ro se cu to r’s r e f us a l t o f i l e [ adi s c r e t i ona ry ] m ot i on . . . i f the yf i nd tha tthe r e f

us a l w a s ba s e d on4

an u n co n st i tu t i o n al m o t i v e, ” su ch as th e d efen d an t ’ s race o r rel i g i o n ); see al so U ni t ed S t at es v. N ea l y, 23 2 F . 3d 82 5, 83 1 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ). H ow e ve r , upon r e vi e w of the r e c or d a nd s e nt e nc i ng tr a ns c r i pt , a nd upon c ons i de r a t i on of

the pa rt i e s ’ br i e f

s , w e di s c e rn no r e ve r s i bl e e rr orbe c aus e the go vernm ent ’ s r ef

usal t o fi l e the re l evantm ot i on w as perm i ss i bl e and w as no tbase d on a n unc ons t i tut i ona l m ot i ve . T hus , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notc l e a r l ye rri n r e f us i ng to g r a n t th e r e d u c tio n f

o ra c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility . AF F I RME D.