Opinion ID: 181203
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Court Should Have Reduced Johnson's Total Offense Level for Accepting Responsibility.

Text: Johnson specifically claims that he did accept responsibility for possessing a firearm, and that he only challenged at trial whether he used the firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. If the facts are uncontested, the Sixth Circuit affords deference to a district court's decision regarding a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and reviews the decision for clear error. United States v. Brown, 367 F.3d 549, 556 (6th Cir.2004) (citing United States v. Webb, 335 F.3d 534, 537-38 (6th Cir.2003)). The offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under section 3E1.1(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) cmt. n.2. The sentencing court's decision whether to apply the reduction will be based primarily upon pre-trial statements and conduct. Id. Here, it is uncontested that Johnson did not admit to possessing the gun until the closing argument of his trial. Up to that point, he had put the government to its burden of proving that he possessed the gun. The district court decided that Johnson's revelation at closing arguments was too late to deserve a reduction under section 3E1.1(a). Indeed, granting a reduction based solely upon a closing argument would be inconsistent with the Guidelines, which direct courts to rely mainly upon pre-trial statements and conduct in making this decision. Id. at cmt. n.2. Accordingly, the district court did not commit clear error in declining to award Johnson a two-level reduction for accepting responsibility.