### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10079

U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P la in tiff-A p p e lle e ,
ve r s us RO NNI E W I L L I AMS ON , D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas N o . 4 :06 -C R -2 0 0 -1

B ef ore SM ITH , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. JE R R YE
. SM ITH , C i rcui tJu dg e:
R on n i e W i l l i am son ap p e a ls h i s s en t en ce, argu i n g t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt com m i t t ed p rocedural errorw h en i t den i ed a on e- poi n t redu ct i on f or acc eptan ce o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y u n d e rU
. S
. S
. G
. § 3 E 1
. 1 (b )
. We a f f i r m. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 2, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10079 Document: 00511039121 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 09- 10079

2 I
. Aj ury pre vi ous l y c onvi c t ed W i l l i am so n of vi ol at i ng 18 U
. S. C
. § 841( a) ( 1)
an d (b) ( 1) (A ) by possessi n g w i t h t h e i n t en t t o di st ribu t e 50 orm ore gram s ofcoc a in e . W e re m a n d e d fo ra n e w tr ia l. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Wi l l i am son , 533 F. 3d 26 9 ( 5t h C i r . 200 8)
. The g o ve r nm e ntt he n c har ge d W i l l i am s o n, i n a o ne - c o unt super se di ng bi l lof

i nf or m a ti on , w i t h t he l es se rof f ens e o f vi ol at i ng § 841( a) ( 1)
an d (b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i) by possessi n g w i t h i n t en tt o di st ribu t e 5 or m ore gram s ofcoc ai ne. W i l l i am so n si gned a w r i t t en pl ea agr ee m ent , pl eadi ng gui l t y. The go vernm en tf

i l ed a m ot i on requ est i n g t h at he be gran t ed a redu ct i on i n hi s of fen se l evelun der § 3E 1. 1(b) becau se, i n i t s op i n i on , h e ha d ti m el y n ot i f i ed au t h ori t i es o f h is in te n tio n t o e n te ra p le a o f g u ilty , t h u s p e r m itt in gt h e g o v e r n m e n t to a v o id prepa ri n g f

or t ri alan d all ow i n g t h e governm en tan d court t o al l ocat e t h ei r r es o u r c e s e ffic ie n tly
. Cf. U .S .S .G
. § 3 E 1 .1(b ) ( 2 0 0 7 ). Th e pr es ent enc e r epo r t( “ PS R ” ) c al c ul at ed t he t ot al of fens e l eve lt o b e 3 0,
w h i ch i n cl u ded a t w o- l eveldecrease pursu an t t o § 3E 1. 1( a) f or acc eptan ce of

respo nsibi l i t y. W i l l i am so n obj ec t ed, ar gui ng, i n re l evantpart , thath e shoul d be g r a n te d th e a d d itio n a l o n e -p o in t r e d u c tio n fo ra c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility in § 3E 1. 1(b) be c aus e t he go ve r nm e ntf i l e d a m o t i o n re que s t i ng t he r e duc t i o n a nd be c aus e he m e tt he c r i t e r i a f o ri t . The di s t r i c t c o ur t o ve r r ul e d t he o bj e c t i o ns a nd
a d o p t e d t h e P S R.
II. R egard i n g t h e one-poi n treducti on , W i l l i am son f i rstcl ai m s t h at t h e vers i o n of § 3E1. 1(b) appl i c ab l e t o hi m do e s no tg i ve t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti nde pe nde nt aut ho r i t y t o co nc l ude t hatt he r e duc t i o n i s unwar r ant e d wher e t he g o ve r nm e nt has fi l ed a m o t i o n a s ki ng f o ri t . Se c o nd, W i l l i am s o n a s s e r t s t hat , e ve n i f t he
c o ur tdo e s hav e i nde pe nde nt aut ho r i t y t o r e f us e t he r e duc t i o n, t he c o ur t ’ s c o nclu si on t h at he di d n otm eett h e § 3E
. 1. 1(b) st an da rd i s er roneou s. W e revi ew Case: 09-10079 Document: 00511039121 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 09- 10079

I ndee d, th e standar d is “even more defere ntial tha n a p ur e clearlyerrone ous stan- 1 dard.” United States v. Gonzales , 19F .3d 9 82, 983(5th Cir. 1 994). Williamson’s argu ment to th e co ntr aryc onfu se s o ur revie w of factu al qu es tion s witho ur revie w of le g al qu es tion s. The 200 3 a mendments made it necessarythat the gove rnment fir st fil e amotion stat- 2 in gth at th e de fe n dant h a d a ssi st ed authoritie s b y ente rin g a ti me lyguiltyp le a . SeeProsecu to ri al R em edie s an d T oolsAg ain stE xpl oitationo f C hil dr enTod ayActo f 2 0 0 3(PR OT E C TAct), Pub
. L
. No
. 1 0 8 -2 1 , § 4 0 1 (g), 1 1 7S tat. 6 5 0 , 6 7 1 -7 2 (2 0 0 3). 3 th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s le g a l co n c lu s io n s d e n o v o , s e e , e . g. , Un i t ed Stat es v. C l ark , 582 F .3 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. C i sneros- G u t i err ez , and i t s fac t ual concl u si on s f

or c l ear err or, s e e , e . g. , Uni t e d St at e s v . G o nz al e z - Te r r az as , 529 1 F .3d 2 9 3 , 2 9 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ).
A
. W i l l i am s o n c o nt e nds t hatt h e 200 3 am en dm en t s t o t h e gu i del i n es di vest ed t h e courtof an y rol e in d et erm i n i n g w h et h er t o gran tan add i t i on alone-poi n tredu ct i on un der § 3E 1. 1(b)
. B y h i s reasoni n g, i f ( 1) t h e di st ri ctcourtdeter m i n es 2 t hatt he t w o - l e ve lr e duc t i o n i n § 3 E1. 1( a) i s w ar r ant e d, a nd ( 2) t he g o ve r nm e nt
m ove s f or an addi t i onal one- l eve l r educ t i on purs uant t o § 3E 1. 1(b) , t he c our thas
n o choi ce but t o gran tt h e one-l evelreducti on . W e di sagree. To s upp o r thi s a r gum e nt , W i l l i am s o n po i nt s t o s e l e c tpa s s ag e s i n t he gu i del i n es, such a s t h e provi si on i t sel f, w h i ch st ates: [ U ] pon m ot i on of

the govern m en tstat i n g t h at the defenda n tha s assi st ed au t h ori t i es . . . by t i m el y n ot i f yi n g au t h ori t i es of

hi s i n t en t i on to e n te ra p le a o f g u ilty , t h e r e b y p e r m itt in gt h e g o v e r n m e n t t o a v o id p rep a ri n g for tri a lan d pe rm i tti n g th e gov ern m en t a n d th e cou rt t o a llo c a te th e irre s o u r c e s e ffic ie n tly , d e c r e a s e th e o ffe n s e b y 1 a d d itio n a l le v e l. § 3 E1. 1(b)
. And he q uo t e s a c o m m e ntt o t he g ui de l i ne : “ Bec aus e t h e G o ve r nm e nti s i n t he be s tpos i t i o n t o det e r m i ne w he t he rt he def e nda nthas as s i s t e d a ut hor i t i es i n a m anner t hat avoi ds pre par i ng f ort r i al , an adj ust m entunder subCase: 09-10079 Document: 00511039121 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 09- 10079

4 s e c t i o n (b) m ayo nl y be gr ant e d upo n a fo r m alm o t i o n b y t he G o ve r nm e nta tt he t i m e o f s e nt e nc i ng. ” U
. S. S. G
. § 3E1. 1 c m t . 6
. The s e pa s s ag e s , he c l ai m s , m ak e i t p l a i n th a t itis th e go ve rn m en t th a t d eterm i n es w h eth er a de fen d a n t w a rra n ts an add i t i on alone-poi n treducti on an d that up on a m ot i on st ati n g such , t h e court h a s n o ch oice bu t t o g ra n t i t. W illia m s o n m is r e a d s § 3 E 1 .1 (b ) a n d its co m m e n ta r y . T h e g u id e lin e is hardl y a m ode lof

c l ar i t y, butt her e i s n o rea son t o c onc l ude t hat , by m aki ng a go ve rn m en t m oti on a p rere q u i sit e, C on gr ess dive sted th e sen ten ci n g cou rt o f i ts i nde pe nde nta ut ho r i t y t o de t e r m i ne w he t he r § 3E1. 1(b) ha s b e e n s at i s f i e d. The
c our tc an appl y t he r educ t i on o nl y “ upon m ot i on of t he go ver nm ents t at i ng t hat t h e defen da n tha s assi st ed au t h ori t i es . . . b y t i m el y n ot i f yi n g [ i t ] of h i s i n t en t i on t o enter a plea of

gu i l t y. ” § 3E 1. 1(b)
. B u tt h ere i s n o a d d iti o n all an gu age p rec l udi ng a r o l e f

o rt he c o ur ti n det e r m i ni ng w he t he rt he pl e a “ t he r e bype r m i t t [ e d] t he g o ve r nm e nt t o a vo i d p r e pa r i ng f o rt r i ala nd p e r m i t t [ e d] t he g o ve r nm e nta nd th e cou rt t o a l l oca te the i r reso u rces eff i ci en tl y.” I

d. M o r e o v e r , th e s t a t e m e n t in th e co m m e n ta r y th a t “ th e G o v e r n m e n t is in t h e bestposi t i on t o deter m i n e w h e th e r t h e defen da n tha s assi st ed au t h ori t i es

. . . ,” § 3 E 1 .1 cm t. 6 , d o e s n o t c o m p e l a d iffe r e n t c o n c lu s io n . T h a t c o m m e n t is
us e d t o s upp o r tt he r e as o n, c o nt ai ne d l at e ri n t he s am e c o m m e nt , w hy “ an ad

j us t m e ntund e rs ubs e c t i o n (b) m ayonl y be gr ant e d upo n a fo r m alm o t i o n b y t he G ov ern m en t . . . . ” I

d. I ti s unsu r pr i s i ng t hatC o ngr e s s w o ul d i nc l ude t hatl ang u a g e in th e co m m e n ta ry , g ive n th a t th e 2 0 0 3 a m e n d m e n t’ s r e q u ir e m e n t of a govern m en tm ot i on represented a chan ge f rom t h e pre- 200 3 gu i del i n es. L i kew i se notabl e i s t h e factt h at t h at c om m en tuses perm i ssive l an gu age. Itsays “ m ay onl y be gran t ed. ” § 3E
. 1. 1 cm t . 6 ( em ph asi s ad ded )
. H ad C on gress, a s W i l l i a ms o n s u g g e s t s , me a n tf o rt h e c o u r t t o h a v e o n l y a mi n i s t e r i a lr o l e , we w o ul d e xp e c tt o s e e i n t he c o m m e nt ar y a m and at o r y c o m m and
. F i n al l y, com m en tfive m ak es a cl ai m , con cerni n g t h e cou rt ’ s ab i l i t y t o deCase: 09-10079 Document: 00511039121 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 09- 10079

5 c i de w he t he ra r e duc t i o n i s w ar r ant e d, t hati s si m i l art o co m m e ntsi x’ s abo utt he gov er nm ent ’ s pow er t o r ec om m end a r educ t i on. I t st at es , “ Th e s ent enc i ng j udge i s i n a un i qu e p osi t i on to eva l u ate a defenda n t ’ s acceptan ce of res pon sibi l i t y. For t hi s r eas on, t he det er m i nat i on o f th e se nt enc i ng j udge i s ent i t l ed t o g r eat def er enc e o n re vi ew . ” U
. S. S. G
. § 3E 1. 1 c m t . 5. Al t hough one m i ght argue t hat th a t c o m m e n t is m o r e a p p lic a b le to § 3 E 1 .1 (a ), th e co m m e n t it s e lf d o e s n o t lim it its re a c h to th a t p r o v is io n , a n d § 3 E 1 .1 (b ) is a s u b s e c tio n o f § 3 E 1 .1 , A cce ptan ce of R es p o n sib ili ty . S ee g en er a lly § 3E 1. 1. O urr e ad i ng ac c o r ds w i t h t he r e l e va ntc as e l aw. I n Un i t ed S t ate s v. Will i a ms , 28 4 F. App’ x 21 2, 21 2 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 08 ) ( pe r c ur i am ) , r e l yi ng o n com m ent si x, w e st ated t h at “ t h e deci si on w h et h er t o gran tt h e add i t i on all evelofreduct io n is th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s

SS n o tth e g o v e r n m e n t ’s

SS eve n t hough t he c ourt m ay o n ly d o s o o n th e g o v e r n m e n t’s m o tio n .” O t he rc i r c ui t s ha ve c o nf r o nt e d t he i s s ue , t o o , i f o nl y o bl i que l y. I n Un i t ed S t ate s v. S l ol ey , 4 64 F. 3d 3 55 , 3 60 ( 2d C i r. 2 006) , t he c o ur tf o und t hat“ t he P R O T E C T A ctal t ered [ § 3E 1. 1] by am en di n g t h e subsect i on an d ad di n g t h e f u rth e re le m e n t o f a p r o s e c u to r ’ s m o tio n , t h e r e b y m a k in gq u a lific a tio n fo ra n a d d it i onalr educ t i on unders ubse c t i on (b) m or e di f f i c ul t . ” Th e c our tc onc l uded t hat

“ C on gress’ai m i n am en di n g [ § 3E 1. 1] m ak es p l ai n t h at un der t h e new versi on b o th th e co u rt a n d th e g o v er n m en t m u stbe sat i sf i ed that t h e accept an ce ofresp on sibi l i ty i s ge n u i n e.” I d. ( e m pha s i s a dde d)
. And i n Un i t ed S t ate s v. S t acey , 53 1 F. 3d 5 65 , 5 68 ( 8t h C i r . 2 00 8) , t he c o ur tr e m and e d f o r“ ‘ c o nt e nts pe c i f

i c ’f i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng t he o ne - l e ve la c c e pt anc e o f r e s po ns i bi l i t y, ” s ugg e s t i ng t hatt he sentenci n g court h as a rol e i n deter m i n i n g w h et h er t h e § 3E 1. 1(b) cr i t eri a are m et. N o t wi t h s t a n d i n g , t h e n , t h e a b i l i t y t o f i n d i s o l a t e d p a s s a g e s t h a tmi ght
s ugg e s to t he r w i s e , t he m o s tre as o nab l e re ad i ng o f t he t e xto f

t he g ui de l i ne a nd i t s c o m m e nt ar y i s t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur tre t ai ns t he abi l i t y t o de c i de w he t he rt he Case: 09-10079 Document: 00511039121 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 09- 10079

C f. U n ited Statesv . Te llo , 9 F.3 d 11 19, 112 8-29(5th Cir. 1 993) (holdin g that sentenc
3 ing court i s li mited to the consi deration s in § 3E 1.1(b) to determine wheth er to grant th e re ductio nan d th at § 3 E 1 .1 d et er min ation s m u st b e inte rn allyc on si st ent) ; cf. also United States v. Wh eeler , 32 2 F .3d 8 23, 826(5th Cir. 2 003) (same). Here , th ere is no Te lloproble m. “The timeliness of th e defendant’s acce ptance of respo nsib ility is a consi deration und er b oth subsec

tion s . . . [but] .
. . the con duct qu alifyingfor a decrea se in offen se l evel und er subsection (b) will occur particularly early in the case.” § 3 E1 .1 c mt. 6. 6 § 3E 1. 1(b) cr i t eri a h ave been m et . Th e current versi on of § 3E 1. 1(b) di f fers f rom t h e pre- am en dm en tversi on i n t h e add i t i on of a new roadblock : N o w , f or a § 3 E1. 1(b) r e duc t i o n, t he g o ve r nm e ntm us t fi rstde t e r m i ne t hatt he de fe nda nt assi st ed au t h ori t i es by enteri n g a ti m el y gu i l t y pl ea, an d the govern m en tm u st f i l e a m ot i on w i t h t h e court t o t h at ef fect ; t h en t h e court m u stdeci de that t h e defendant m ee t s t he § 3E 1. 1(b) c r i t er i a.
B
. W i l l i am son argu es, i n t h e al t erna t i ve, t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n det erm i n i n g t h at he di d n otqu al i f y f or t h e ext ra reducti on . W e di sagree. T h e P S R contai n s a recom m en da t i on t h at t h e redu ct i on be den i ed becau se

“ t h e governm en th ad to i n i t i al l y prepa re f or tr i ala n d a n ew t ri alw ou l d h ave requi r ed m i ni m alw or k and/ orprepar at i on. ” Th e co urtov er r ul ed W i l l i am so n’ s obj e c t i o n t o t he P SR, f

i ndi ng t hat( 1) hi s g ui l t y pl e a di d no ts i gni f i c ant l y as s i s tt he govern m en t , becau se i tw ou l d n otha ve t ak en m an y resources to p repare f or a r et r i al ; ( 2) he di d nott i m el y not i f y t he go ver nm entof

hi s i nt entt o pl ead g ui l t y, becau se t h e case i n i t i al l y w en tto tri al ; a n d ( 3) h e d i d n otuse t h e court ’ s r esources ef f i c i ent l y. T h e co u r t d id n o t e r r . It k e p t it s co n s id e r a tio n s to th o s e co n ta in e d in § 3 E 1. 1(b)

SS t he e f

f i c i e ntus e o f

t he go ve r nm e nt ’ s and t he c o ur t ’ s r e s o ur c e s a nd th e ti m eli n e ss of t h e p l ea . A s p a rt of i ts de term i n a ti on , the cou rt w a s f ree to 3 Case: 09-10079 Document: 00511039121 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/02/2010N o. 09- 10079

Cf. United States v. Vue , 38F .3d 9 73, 975 (8th Cir. 199 4) (“ Even thou gheach defen

4 dantple aded guiltyw ithin approximate lythree month s of the reversalof his convictions on initial a pp eal, wedo n ota gre e th at th e govern me nt wa s s avedmuche ff ort by t h os e pl ea s, sinceth e b ulk of pre parationbyth e governme nt was for the initialtri al and coul d re lative ly ea silyh ave b ee napp li edt o th e se co n d trial a s w ell. ”)
. 7 c o n s id e rW illia m s o n ’ s e a r lie rd e c is io n to fo r g o a g u ilty p le a a n d p r o c e e d to tr ia l. 4 W i l l i am son, af

t er al l , “ h ad a t ri alon the m eri t s and a bi t e at t h e acqu i t t alcherry . ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Sanc he z - R ue das , 4 5 2 F .3 d 4 0 9 , 4 1 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). M o r e o ve r , t he po i nto f § 3 E1. 1(b) i s t o r e w ar d d e fe nda nt s w ho no t i f y aut ho r i t i e s e ar l y e no ugh “ s o t hatt he g o ve r nm e ntm aya vo i d p r e pa r i ng f o rt r i ala nd t h e courtm ay sched u l e i t s c al en da r ef f i ci en t l y. ” § 3E 1
. 1 cm t . 6. Th e di st ri ct court concl u ded t h at, reg ardl ess of how ever m u ch ad di t i on alt ri alprepa rat i on t he g o ve r nm e nta vo i de d t hr o ugh W i l l i am s o n’ s gui l t y pl e a f o l l o w i ng r e m and , t he pre par at i on f

ort he i ni t i alt r i al and t he use of t he c our t ’ s r es our c es f ort hat t r i al
m eantt hat t he § 3E 1. 1(b) benef i t s t o t he gov er nm ent and t he c our t w er e no tob

tain ed
. T h a t fi n d i n g w a s n ot “w i th ou t f ou n d a ti on . ” Uni t e d St at e s v. W ashi ngt on , 3 4 0 F .3 d 2 2 2 , 2 2 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); s e e als o Vue , 38 F. 3d at975. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-10079 Document: 00511039121 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/02/2010