Opinion ID: 581354
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenges to the Resentencing Decision

Text: 51 Barry also raises three challenges to the district court's resentencing decision. Specifically,, [295 U.S.App.D.C. 179] he claims that: (1) the court erred in denying his request for a supplemental presentence report; (2) it erred in not awarding him a two-point reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility; and (3) it violated due process by vindictively sentencing him in response to his successful appeal of the initial sentence. For the reasons discussed below, we reject these challenges. 52
53 Prior to Barry's initial sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presentence investigation report that included a determination that he had not accepted responsibility for his crime and therefore did not qualify for a two-point downward departure. During the resentencing hearing, the court denied Barry's request for an updated report. Barry now argues that the denial violated both Rule 32(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 18 U.S.C. § 3661. Rule 32(a) provides: 54 Prior to the sentencing hearing, the court shall provide the counsel for the defendant ... with notice of the probation officer's determination, pursuant to ... subdivision (c)(2)(B), of the sentencing classifications and sentencing guideline range believed to be applicable to the case. 55 The initial presentence report had given Barry the required notice of the probation officer's recommendations on sentencing classifications and ranges. Absent a change of mind by the probation officer, which Barry has not alleged, we see no basis in Rule 32(a) for requiring that the report be supplemented. 56 Barry also invokes 18 U.S.C. § 3661, which states: 57 No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence. 58 This section does not mandate the preparation of presentence reports. Moreover, Barry concedes that the court allowed him to submit new information that he deemed to be relevant to his resentencing. Brief for Appellant at 30. This included updated information concerning his rehabilitation efforts and the community service he had performed between the first and second sentencings. See Defendant's Submission Re: Sentencing Issues and Guidelines Calculations, Sept. 20, 1991, at 13; Tr. II at 21-23, 25-27. Because the court placed no limitation on the introduction of information concerning Barry's background, character, and conduct, we see no violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3661.
59 At the resentencing, the court found that Barry had not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct and, therefore, was not qualified for a reduction of his sentencing level under Guidelines section 3E1.1. That section states in part: (a) If the defendant clearly demonstrates a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct, reduce the offense level by 2 levels. Barry argues that the district court erred in not awarding him this reduction. 60 Barry concedes that the section 3E1.1 determination is committed to the discretion of the trial court. Comment 5 to section 3E1.1 states that [t]he 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. We have held: 61 With the defendant before him, the sentencing judge is unquestionably in a better position to assess contrition and candor than is an appellate court. Courts have held that these determinations are entitled, at the least, to the benefit of the clearly erroneous standard of review. 62 United States v. Taylor, 937 F.2d 676, 680 (D.C.Cir.1991) (emphasis added). In addition to overcoming this deferential standard of review, Barry must prove that he was entitled to the reduction. See United States v. Burke, 888 F.2d 862, 869 n. 10[295 U.S.App.D.C. 180] (D.C.Cir.1989) (The defendant properly bears the burden of proof under those sections of the Guidelines that define mitigating factors.). 63 Barry relies on evidence that he was willing to plead guilty to four misdemeanor drug possession counts in advance of trial. Although this evidence is relevant, it is not in and of itself sufficient. As explained in section 3E1.1 and its related commentary: 64 (c) A defendant who enters a guilty plea is not entitled to a sentencing reduction under this section as a matter of right. Commentary 65