Opinion ID: 68331
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impermissible Double-Counting

Text: Next, Balbuena argues that it was impermissible double-counting for the district court both to increase his offense level for obstruction of justice and to deny him an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction to that offense level based on his failure to appear at the initial plea hearing.5 5 This Court reviews claims of double counting de novo. United States v. MatosRodriguez, 188 F.3d 1300, 1310 (11th Cir. 1999). 13 “Impermissible double counting occurs only when one part of the Guidelines is applied to increase a defendant’s punishment on account of a kind of harm that has already been fully accounted for by application of another part of the Guidelines.” United States v. Matos-Rodriguez, 188 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted). It is presumed that the Sentencing Commission intended to apply separate guideline sections cumulatively unless there are specific directions otherwise. United States v. Stevenson, 68 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 1995). A two-level obstruction-of-justice increase applies where “the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded . . . the administration of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction” and the obstructive conduct related to the defendant’s offense of conviction. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The guidelines list “willfully failing to appear, as ordered, for a judicial proceeding” as an example of conduct to which the obstruction-of-justice enhancement applies. Id. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(e). In considering whether an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction is appropriate, “[e]ntry of a plea of guilty prior to the commencement of trial combined with truthfully admitting the conduct comprising the offense of conviction . . . will constitute significant evidence of acceptance of responsibility.” Id. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.3 (emphasis added). Conduct 14 resulting in an obstruction-of-justice enhancement “ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct.” Id. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.4. We reject Balbuena’s double-counting claim. The guidelines explicitly contemplate that conduct resulting in an obstruction-of-justice enhancement may warrant a denial of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.4. Thus, it was permissible for the district court to consider Balbuena’s failure to appear for his plea hearing in both guidelines calculations. Furthermore, the district court also properly determined that Balbuena’s challenge to the drug quantity after his guilty plea and admission to the government’s factual proffer was incompatible with a true acceptance of responsibility. Thus, we see no error in the district court applying the two guidelines sections cumulatively. In conclusion, we affirm Balbuena’s convictions and sentences. AFFIRMED. 15