Opinion ID: 571445
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sentencing reduction

Text: 13 At the sentencing hearing, the district court denied Appellant's request for a two point base offense level reduction under Federal Sentencing Guidelines § 3E1.1. 3 Appellant claimed he was entitled to the reduction because he had confessed to his crimes, thus accepting personal responsibility. However, § 3E1.1 applies to defendants who clearly demonstrates a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for criminal conduct 4 and does not apply as a matter of right to all defendants who enter guilty pleas. 5 The sentencing judge commented on the number of occasions upon which he had observed the Appellantand remained unconvinced the Appellant held any remorse whatever regarding his crimes, much less accepted meaningful responsibility for the significance of his crimes. The district court judge was fully satisfied of the appropriateness of denying the Appellant's request for a two point offense level reduction. 14 The official comment to Federal Sentencing Guideline § 3E1.1 provides: 15 The sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant's acceptance of responsibility. For this reason, the determination of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review. 6 16 Because we accord this deference and because we find Appellant's claim of a clear demonstration of acceptance of responsibility incompatible with the fact that he lied under oath during the Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 32(d) hearing, we AFFIRM the district court's denial of the two point offense level reduction.