Opinion ID: 559043
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial Of A Reduction For Acceptance Of Responsibility

Text: 27 Restrepo asserts that the district court erred in denying a reduction of the offense level for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1 because he did not provide substantial assistance to the Government. Restrepo appears to argue that consideration of a defendant's assistance to the Government is only appropriate when the sentencing court is considering a downward departure for substantial assistance to the Government under Section 5K1.1 of the Guidelines. Restrepo claims that the district court's comment that it considered the truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of his statements to the Government is an indication of improper reliance on Section 5K1.1 factors by the district court in making its decision whether to decrease the offense level for acceptance of responsibility. Whether or not a defendant has accepted responsibility for his crime is a factual determination we review for clear error. United States v. Gonzalez, 897 F.2d 1018, 1019 (9th Cir.1990). 28 The record and the Guidelines do not support Restrepo's argument. The court did not indicate in any way that it was applying the factors set forth in Section 5K1.1 in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Furthermore, Section 3E1.1 requires a court to consider whether a defendant has made a truthful admission to authorities of his involvement in the offense and related conduct. Thus, it was not error for the trial court to consider the truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of defendant's statements to government officials under Section 3E1.1. 29 In this matter Restrepo made no statement to the arresting officers. During the booking procedures he identified himself as Ricardo Vargas and denied that his true name was Restrepo, until he was confronted with his driver's license. He pleaded not guilty and put the Government to its burden of proof at trial. Upon being informed that Restrepo intended to appeal from the judgment of conviction, the probation officer did not discuss the facts that led to Restrepo's arrest. 30 The Commentary to Section 3E1.1 states that the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility 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. Restrepo stated to the probation officer that the court should give me what I deserve, because I have been convicted. This statement does not reflect an acceptance of responsibility. Instead, it is simply a realistic acknowledgment that he was convicted by the jury and will be punished by the court. 31 In a letter to the court, prior to the sentencing hearing, Restrepo stated [T]his act without a doubt has been the most shameful of my life. During the allocution, Restrepo apologized to the people of the United States for the wrong I may have caused. Restrepo also told the court [i]t's the first time that I've committed an offense of this magnitude. The district court was free to discount Restrepo's belated expression of remorse and repentance. The district court's determination that Restrepo's conduct did not demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility by his post-conviction statements is not clearly erroneous.