Opinion ID: 220580
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of the Plea

Text: Saani first argues the decision to deny him credit under § 3E1.1 should not stand because the district court failed to acknowledge the timeliness of his plea. He points out that at a status hearing the judge said if he pleaded guilty prior to the date of the pretrial conference, then he should have no problem getting credit under § 3E1.1. Thus, Saani argues, the court essentially promised [him] that a plea by the deadline would result in a § 3E1.1 adjustment. Saani's contention fails because a defendant who enters a guilty plea is not entitled to an adjustment under [§ 3E1.1] as a matter of right, § 3E1.1 cmt n. 3; indeed, the timeliness of a defendant's plea is only one of eight factors the Guidelines suggest a court may consider, id. cmt n. 1. Here, the district judge did not mention the timing of Saani's plea, but did point to reasons for believing Saani had not in fact accepted responsibility  his failure at the plea hearing to admit he had underreported income and his refusal later to cooperate fully with Probation. Those are adequate reasons for denying him credit. A dozen years ago we rejected explicitly Saani's implicit suggestion to the contrary. See United States v. Bridges, 175 F.3d 1062, 1067 (D.C.Cir.1999) (We see no reason, and have no warrant, to overturn the district court simply because it did not go through the exercise of explaining the rejection of choices implicit in the choice it did make).