Opinion ID: 768514
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Downward Departure for Acceptance of Responsibility.

Text: 40 Finally, Corona-Garcia also challenges his sentence. At his sentencing hearing, the district court granted a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to S 3E1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court refused, however, to grant an additional one level reduction under S 3E1.1(b)(1).  `Whether a defendant is entitled to an adjustment based on acceptance of responsibility is a factual determination reviewed for clear error.'  United States v. Blanco Gallegos, 188 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Villasenor-Cesar, 114 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 1997)). 41 Corona-Garcia argues that, because the district court found that a two-level reduction was warranted, he was then entitled to an additional one-level reduction by virtue of his full and prompt confession to INS investigators. We agree. 42 Section 3E1.1, titled Acceptance of Responsibility, requires that: 43 (a) [i]f the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense, decrease offense level by 2 levels. 44 (b) [i]f the defendant qualifies for a decrease under subsection (a), the offense level determined prior to the operation of subsection (a) is level 16 or greater, and the defendant has assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of his own misconduct by taking one or more of the following steps: 45 (1) timely providing complete information to the government concerning his own involvement in the offense; or 46 (2) timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the court to allocate its resources efficiently, decrease the offense level by 1 additional level. 47 U.S.S.G. S 3E1.1. 48 Presuming that a defendant has qualified for the initial two-level reduction under subsection (a), the disjunctive language of subsection (b) -using as it does the word or -clearly indicates that a defendant is eligible for an additional one-level reduction if he timely provid[es ] complete information about his involvement in the crime, irrespective of his plea. Indeed, we have previously held that once it has been established that a defendant has fulfilled the conditions for an acceptance of responsibility reduction under S 3E1.1(a), an additional one-level reduction is mandatory if the defendant meets the independent criteria of either subsection (b)(1) or subsection (b)(2). See United States v. Eyler , 67 F.3d 1386, 1391 (9th Cir. 1995). If a defendant makes a timely and complete confession, he satisfies the requirements of S 3E1.1(b)(1) and his subsequent decision to plead not guilty -or even to seek suppression of his confession -is irrelevant. 49 Here, although Corona-Garcia did put the government to its burden of proof and demanded a speedy trial, he also provided the government with timely and complete information concerning his reentry following deportation. Corona Garcia made detailed confessions to two INS investigators before he was charged. In fact, he did so before he was even referred for prosecution. This confession established all of the necessary elements of a S 1326 violation: Corona-Garcia admitted that he is an alien, confirmed that he had been previously deported, acknowledged that he reentered the United States, and conceded that he did so without the permission of the Attorney General. No more is required. See Blanco Gallegos, 188 F.3d at 1077 (timely and complete confession to all elements of S 1326 violation entitles defendant to S 3E1.1(b)(1) reduction). 50 Thus, in addition to the two-level reduction already granted by the district court under U.S.S.G. S 3E1.1(a), Corona-Garciawas entitled to a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under S 3E1.1(b)(1). The district court's conclusion to the contrary was clear error.