Opinion ID: 790872
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Acceptance of Responsibility Decrease

Text: 24 The government cross-appeals the district court's downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility 1 essentially arguing that Tyler Water should not qualify because he took the case to trial. We disagree. Although Tyler Water had the burden to prove acceptance of responsibility, the district court was within its discretion to find that Tyler Water qualified for the reduction. United States v. Lublin, 981 F.2d 367, 370 (8th Cir.1992). We review the district court's sentence under the guidelines for unreasonableness. United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, 767, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The determination of the district court is given great deference on review and should not be disturbed unless it is without foundation, as the sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant's acceptance of responsibility. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. app. n. 5. 25 In this case, the district court found the following: (1) Tyler Water admitted to causing Chief's injuries, and thus the only fact in dispute was whether he possessed the necessary malice to commit second-degree murder; (2) Tyler Water assisted law enforcement in finding the weapon, which led to the revolver being surrendered without having to obtain a search warrant; (3) once Tyler Water was charged, he turned himself in; and (4) during closing arguments, Tyler Water's attorney advised the jury that he wanted to accept responsibility and didn't think that he should get off for everything that he was charged with. The district court ruled that under these facts, the two-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility applied. 2 We affirm the two-level downward adjustment.