Opinion ID: 2978017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Acceptance of Responsibility (Lewis)

Text: Defendant Lewis contends the district court erred in its calculation of the appropriate advisory Sentencing Guidelines range by refusing to give him credit for acceptance of responsibility for his wrongdoing. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). He contends his admission of guilt in relation to seven of the charged offenses is clear evidence of his acceptance of responsibility. Yet, Lewis did not ask for acceptance-of-responsibility credit in the district court and did not object to the presentence report recommendation that no credit be given. Lewis did object to the court’s obstruction-of-justice - 12 - Nos. 07-1652, 07-1711 United States v. Manjate and Lewis enhancement, but the objection was overruled because the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Lewis testified falsely that he was not involved in a conspiracy with Manjate. Ordinarily, we review the district court’s acceptance-of-responsibility determination, presenting a factual inquiry, only for clear error. United States v. Brown, 367 F.3d 549, 556 (6th Cir. 2004). Even when the determination is based on uncontested facts, the district court’s decision is reviewed with deference, not de novo. Id. Here, however, inasmuch as Lewis did not even ask for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, we review for plain error and may grant relief only on a showing that the error was so plain and obvious that the district court was derelict in not correcting it sua sponte. Lewis’s position amounts to the argument that because he admitted guilt to some of the charged offenses, he is entitled to credit for acceptance of responsibility as a matter of law, even though he was found to have testified falsely regarding other counts. Lewis is plainly wrong. Conduct resulting in an obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 is ordinarily deemed to indicate a failure to accept responsibility. United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562, 581 (6th Cir. 2008). However, there may be extraordinary circumstances in which both an obstruction of justice enhancement and an acceptance of responsibility reduction may apply. Id. Where obstruction of justice has occurred, defendant has the burden of proving the extraordinary nature of his case. Lewis has not carried this burden. Quite to the contrary, the facts show that Lewis’s obstructive conduct, perjury, as found by the district court, continued during trial even after he had admitted his guilt in relation to some of the charges. Under such circumstances, credit for - 13 - Nos. 07-1652, 07-1711 United States v. Manjate and Lewis acceptance of responsibility is consistently denied. See id. at 582; United States v. Angel, 355 F.3d 462, 478 (6th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we reject Lewis’s claim that the district court’s denial of credit for acceptance of responsibility was plain error.