Opinion ID: 2979998
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Acceptance-of-Responsibility Departure

Text: Harris challenges the district court for finding that, because the Guidelines require application of the acceptance-of-responsibility departure prior to application of the mandatory minimum, the mandatory minimum effectively nullified any such departure. Relying on United States v. Harris, 339 F. App’x 533 (6th Cir. 2009), he contends that the district court failed to grasp both the advisory nature of the Guidelines and its discretion to consider issues out of order. But Harris misconstrues Harris. Though that case acknowledges the advisory nature of the Guidelines, the opinion does not hold that courts may ignore the Guidelines’ sequential aspects. Id. at 538. Rather, the Guidelines instruct courts to apply its provisions in a particular order and, specifically, to determine the base offense level and any adjustment for acceptance of responsibility before considering a departure under Parts H and K of Chapter Five. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1; United States v. Coker, 514 F.3d 562, 573 (6th Cir. 2008) (“The Guidelines Manual explains that ‘adjustments’ are applied first to calculate a defendant’s guideline range, while ‘departures’ are given only at the end of the sentencing process and after all adjustments have been applied.” (citation omitted)). To do otherwise would constitute procedural error. See United States v. Brooks, 628 F.3d 791, 795–96 (6th Cir. 2011). -6- No. 07-5845 USA v. Harris In finding that the mandatory minimum nullified Harris’s acceptance-of-responsibility departure, the district court simply applied the Guidelines sequentially and committed no abuse of discretion.