Opinion ID: 699616
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: USSG Sec. 3E1.1

Text: 9 Thompson argues first that the district court erred by denying him an additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under USSG 3E1.1(b). Where an offender has already qualified for a two-level decrease under USSG Sec. 3E1.1(a) and the offense level has been determined to be sixteen or greater, USSG Sec. 3E1.1(b) provides that an offender earns an additional one-level reduction in [his] offense level if [he] has timely provided the government with complete information about [his] involvement in the offense, or if [he] has timely notified authorities that [he] intends to plead guilty so the government can avoid preparing for trial and the court can efficiently allocate its resources. United States v. Patterson, 11 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (footnote omitted).  'A defendant who enters a guilty plea is not entitled to an adjustment under this section as a matter of right.'  United States v. McQuay, 7 F.3d 800, 802 (8th Cir.1993) (quoting USSG Sec. 3E1.1, comment. (n. 3)). 10 Thompson argues that he is entitled to the additional one-level reduction based on both his alleged timely provision of complete information to the Government concerning his role in the offense and his alleged timely notification of his intention to plead guilty. We give great deference to a district court's decision about acceptance of responsibility and will reverse the decision only for clear error. United States v. Schau, 1 F.3d 729, 731 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam). 11 The district court found that Thompson was not entitled to an additional one-level reduction pursuant to USSG Sec. 3E1.1(b). We find no clear error. Thompson did not provide the Government with information regarding his role in the offenses until after he had both pleaded guilty and received use immunity through his proffer agreement. At that point, both the investigation and Thompson's prosecution were effectively completed. As such, Thompson did not volunteer any information to the government in time for it to be useful to the government in its investigation. McQuay, 7 F.3d at 802; see also Schau, 1 F.3d at 731. We agree that Thompson did not timely provide the Government with complete information regarding his role in the offenses. 12 Thompson similarly failed to timely notify the Government of his intention to plead guilty. Instead, Thompson pleaded guilty the morning of his scheduled trial date and did not notify the Government of his intention to do so until the previous Friday. By then, the Government had essentially already completed its preparations for trial. Such notice did not allow the Government to avoid having to prepare for trial, nor did it allow the district court to effectively allocate its resources. McQuay 7 F.3d at 803 (notification of intention to plead guilty two days prior to scheduled trial date was not timely for purposes of USSG Sec. 3E1.1(b)); see also United States v. Robinson, 14 F.3d 1200, 1203 (7th Cir.1994) (guilty plea four days prior to scheduled trial was not timely for purposes of USSG Sec. 3E1.1(b)).