The Honor able Thoma s W. P hillips , United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District * of Tenne ssee, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0659n.06 F iled: Septem ber 5, 2007 Case No. 06- 1810 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. THOMAS PAU L ACKERMAN, Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE WE STE RN DISTRICT OF MICHIG AN AT GR AND RA P IDS

BEFORE: BATCHELDER and COLE, Circuit Jud ges, and PHILLIPS, District Judge. * THOMAS W. P HILL IP S, Distr ict Judge. The question befor e the Court is whether the district court er

red when it dec lined to awar d the def endant a two-point reduc tion in his sentenc e for
acc eptanc e of r esponsibility . Since a district cour t can only consider releva nt conduct related to the g uilty plea of the par ticular off ense f or dete rmining a defe ndant’s acce ptance of re sponsibili ty , we VA CA TE the se nte nc e of the dis tr ic t c ourt and REM AN D f

or re se nte nc ingin a c c or da

nc e wi th t his opinion. I. Bac kgr ound L oc a l la w e nf or c e me nt r e c e ive d in fo rm a tio n th a t de fe nd ant w a s g row in g m ari jua na a t hi s residenc e and w ent to defe ndant’s home on November 9, 2004 to investigate. Afte r law e nforc ementFive of the ninetee n firea

rms wer e not cha

rg ed fe dera lly , as they

wer e dete rmined to be 1 either a ntiques or black pow der f irea rms. 2 explained the purpose of

their visit, defenda

nt consented to a

sear ch of his re sidence

. Du ring the
se arc h, de fe nd ant a dmi tte d to the of fi c e rs that th e y

wo uld fi nd mari jua na on the se c on d f

loo r o f h is h o m e . T h e d e f

e n d an tc o n f

e s s e d t h a th e g r e w an d

u s e d m ar i j u an a f o r h i s o w np e r s o n a l u s e . In addition to finding ne arly five pounds of marijuana , the officers found nineteen guns and hundre ds of ro un ds of a mmunit ion

. At the tim e of the se arc h, de fe nd ant s ta te d th a t th e g un s b e lon g e d to his

1 roommate a

nd g irlfriend. H oweve r, fur ther investig ation indic at ed that the g uns belong ed to the de fe nd ant. There afte r, the de fenda

nt was indicted on November 23, 2005 for being a fe lon in possession of a firea rm and for possession of m arijuana

. On Februa ry 2, 2006, the def

endant pled guilty

to the felon in possession of a fi rearm cha rg e. The misdemeanor dr ug char g e of simple possession was dropped a s a part of t he plea ag ree ment. Howeve r, the plea ag ree ment provided that “ in determining the sentenc e[,] the C ourt may consider the dismiss ed [ drug related] count.” Def endant wa s relea sed on bond, order ed to abstain from marijuana use, and order ed to pa rticipate in dr

ug testing. After

the defe ndant fa iled a number of monthly drug tests, a s well as denied a ny use of dr ug s to his probation office r, the de fenda

nt was broug ht before the district court. When fa cing the judg e, the de fenda nt admitted his drug use, and his bond wa s theref ore r evoked. During defe ndant’s sente ncing stag e, the c ourt consider ed and r end ere d decisions on a number of obje ctions made by the def endant to the pr esente nce r eport. The district c ourt found that (1) the de fenda

nt did n o t possess all of the fir ear ms solely for law ful sporting and collec tionAs to defe ndant’s re quest for a reduc tion for ac cepta

nce of responsibility , the 2 go v ern m en td i d

n o tco n t es tth e d ef

en d an t ’s p et i t i o np ri o r t o t h e c o u rt ’s ru l i n g.

3 purposes; (2) the four- point enhance ment for possession of a fire arm in conne ction with another felony was not wa

rra nted; (3) a

two-point enhanc ement f or possession of a stolen f irea rm was applicable ; (4) def

endant’ s conduct d i d n o t warr ant a two- point reduction for acc eptanc e of responsibility ; and (5) no de parture reduc tion w o uld be g iven with respe ct to the issue of a iling health. 2 Th e dis tr ic t cour t th en se nte nc e d th e de fe nd ant a t an o ff e ns e le ve l of

e ig hte e n a

nd a t a
c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y c a t e g o r y o f I. T h e s e n t e n c i n g r an g e f o r t h i s c o mb i n a t i o ni s t w e n t y- s e v e nt o t h i rt ythr e e mon ths . T he dis tr ic t c ourt , ho we ve r, imp os e d a se nte nc e of tw e nty mon ths of imp ri so nme nt, i.e., seven months be low the g uideline rang e, afte r considering the g overnme nt’s motio n for do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e and the re le va

nt T itl e 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3 f a c tor s. Subsequently , the def

endant tim ely filed an appea l, taking issue only with the district court’s denial of a two-point reduc tion for def endant’ s acc eptanc e of responsibility . The district cour t found that th e de fe nd ant h a d n ot a c c e pte d r e sp on sib ili ty be c a us e (1 ) he fa ile d to a c c e pt a ny re sp on sib ili ty for possession of the marijuana at his home, (2) the defe ndant repeate dly used m arijuana afte r he w as rele ased on bond a

nd afte r he ple d g uilty , and (3) defe ndant repe atedly lied to probation reg arding his mari jua na us e . T he de fe nd ant a

rgue s th a t he a dmi tte d h is p os se ssi on of the fi re arm s to the a g e nts up on arr e st, ple d guil ty

to t he fi re arm

c ha rg e , a nd pr ov ide d sub sta

nti a l ass ist anc e to the g ov e rn me nt. Def endant a sser t s t h at t hese a ctions warr ant a r eduction in the off ense le vel for a cce ptance of responsibility , despite the de fenda nt’s post-plea dr

ug use and de nial of his marijuana addiction, that4

is, until the g overnme nt moved to revoke his pre-se ntence rele ase. II. Ana lys is “B eca use it is ge nera lly

a question of f

act, the tr ial court’s de termination of whe ther a de fe nd ant h a s a c c e pte d r e sp on sib ili ty no rm a lly e njo y s th e pr ote c tio n o f t he ‘c le arl y

e rr on e ou s’ standard, a

nd will not be overturne d unless it is wit hout foundation.” Un ite d S tat es v . R ob e rts , 243 F.3d 235, 240- 41 (6th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (quot ations omitt ed). H oweve r, questions of law, suc h as the appropr iate application of a g uideline to a par ticular set of

fac ts, are subje ct to a de novo r eview. See U n it e d S ta te s v . W il s o n , 920 F.2d 1290, 1294 ( 6th Cir. 1990). The def endant ha s the burden of
e sta bli sh ingby

a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e that a

re du c tio n f

or a c c e pta nc e of re sp on sib ili ty

is justified. United States v. Bank s , 252 F.3d 801, 806 ( 6th Cir. 2001). Pursuant to § 3E1.1 of the Sentenc ing G uidelines, a dist rict court shall decr ease a def endant’ s of fe ns e le ve l by

tw o le ve ls ? [i ]f the de fenda nt clear ly demonstrates a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty for his of fe n s e . . . .” I

n deter mining whe ther a

defe ndant qualifies f

or a r eduction for

acc eptanc e of responsibility , the sentenc ing court we ighs a nd examines differe nt considerations, including the conduct c omprising the of fense (s) of conviction, and truthfully admitting or not fa lsely

denying a

ny additional rele vant conduc t for which the defe ndant is acc ountable. U.S.S

. G. § 3 E 1
. 1 cmt, n. 1 (2003). Under t h e S entenc ing G uidelines, it is not a requireme nt that a def endant “ volunteer, or aff irmatively

admit, releva

nt conduct beyond the offense of conviction i n order to obtain a re duction [fo r a c c e pta

nc e of re sp on sib ili ty ] .
. . . Ho we ve r, a de fe nd ant wh o fa lse ly denie s, or f ri volou sly
c on te sts , r e le va

nt c on du c t th a t th e c ourt de te rm ine s to b e tr ue ha s a c te d in

a mann e r i nc on sis te nt w ith
acc eptanc e of r espon s i b i l i t y [ .]” Id. The de fenda nt’s voluntary

termination or withdra

wal fr om5

crimi n a l c o n d

u c t o r a s s o c iati o n s is a ls o c o n s id e r e d w h e n c o n te mp lati n g an a c c e p ta nce of responsibility

reduc tion. U.S.S .G. § 3E1.1 cmt, n. 1(b) (2003). Mo re ov e r, Ap pli c atio n N ote 3 to § 3 E1 .1 state s a s f oll ow s:
En tr y of a ple a of g uil ty pr ior to the c omm e nc e me nt o f t ri a l c omb ine d w ithtr

uth fu lly admitting the c onduct comprising the offense of conviction, and truthfully admitting or not falsely denying any additional rele vant conduc t for which he is acc ountable .

. . will constitut e sig nificant e vidence of ac cepta nce of responsibility

for the pur

poses of subsec tion (a). How ever , t h i s ev i d ence may be outweig hed by

conduct of

the defe ndant that is inconsistent with s u ch ac cepta nce of responsibility . A def

endant who enter s a g uilty

plea is not entitled to an adjustm ent under this section as a matter of ri g ht. We have pr eviously

addre ssed and de scribed the ty pe of criminal conduct that a district court should consider in its determination of a defe ndant’s ac cepta

nce of responsibility

in United States v. Morrison , 983 F.2d 730 ( 6th Cir. 1993). I n Morrison , the def endant wa s indicted for be ing a felon in posse ssion of a fire arm. Id. at 731. Followinghis indictment but before se ntencing , the def endant
was c harg ed in state c ourt with attempted theft of a pick- up truck. Id. at 733. Fur ther, the de fenda

nt tested positiv e fo r controll ed substance s. Id. At sentenc ing, the trial court c ounted the attempted theft, and ma

y have c ounted the positive drugtest, ag ainst the defe ndant in denying him a r eduction for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty
. Id. On appe al, we r ev ersed. We held that criminal conduc t ref ere nced in Application Note 1 (b ) of § 3E1.1 inc ludes all criminal conduc t “re lated to the underlying of

fense .” Id. at 735. Related c onduct includes, among othe r ty pes, conduc t that is “the motivating fo rc e b ehind t he under ly ing of fense ” or involves “ an other wise strong link with the underlying of

fense .” Id . We determined tha t the attempted thef

t and the positive drugscre en we re not relate d conduct to the unde rly ing of fense and ther efor e conc luded that counting this conduct6

ag ainst the defe ndant for pur poses of de termining acc eptanc e of r esponsibility was in er ror. Subsequent to the Morrison decision, the Six th Circuit in United States v. Bank s , 252 F.3d 801, 807 (6th Cir. 2001), likewise held that consideration of unrelate d post-plea c harg es as a fac tor in determining whether

the def endant ha d acc epted r esponsibility for th e s en tencingoffe nses was improper. I n the Ba nk

s case , we conclude d that the def endant’ s post-plea a ssault and destruc tion of proper ty char g es we re unr elated to the of fense s for which the defe ndant was be ing se ntence d, that is, drug traff

icking and fire arm possession off enses. Id. Simi larly , in the prese nt case , the defe ndant pled g uilty to the g un char g e, truthfully told the ag ents about the guns, and for feited his fire arms. The g un char g e wa s the offe nse of the c onviction. Th e de fe nd ant’ s d e nia l of his dr uga dd ic tio n a

nd po sit ive po st- ple a

dr ugsc re e ns do no t un de rc ut h is g uilty plea in his fir ea rm case . Moreove r, the a rg ument that the plea a g ree ment contemplates consideration of conduct re lated to his dismis sed drugpossession offense is not controlling in light of our r ulings in Morrison and Banks

. The defe ndant did not plea d g uilty to a simple possession of

mari jua na of fe ns e , a nd the dr ug re la te d c ha

rg e wa s no t purs ue d by

the g ov e rnme nt i n it s c a se a g a ins t the def endant. A de fenda

nt’s acc eptanc e of r esponsibility is related to hi s o ff

en s e alone and not “illeg al conduc t in ge nera l.” S ee Mo r r ison , 938 F.2d at 735. “Considering unrelated cr iminal
c on du c t un fairl y pen a lize s a de fe nd ant f

or a c ri min a l di sp os iti on , w he n tr ue re mor se fo r s pe c if

ic criminal beha

vior is the issue.” Id. III. Conclusi on Be cause conduct to be c onsidered f or dete rmining a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty at the sentenc ing sta g e mus t be re lated to the off ense to whic h the def

endant e ntere d his guilty

plea, we7

VACATE the tria l court’s sente nce a nd REMAND for

rese ntencingconsistent with this decision.