Opinion ID: 678608
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The third point.

Text: 22 The district judge awarded both defendants three points for acceptance of responsibility. The third point is supposed to be allowed for timely acceptance of responsibility: 23 If the defendant ... timely notif[ies] 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. 24 USSG Sec. 3E1.1(b). The government appeals the third point given to Say Pha Khang, but not Lee Khang, on the ground that his change of plea was not timely. Although his brother pleaded guilty weeks before trial, Say Pha Khang did not advise of his intention to plead until 7:20 p.m. the night before trial. 25 The district judge did not find that this was timely, in the sense of permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial, and it is hard to see how it could be. Cf. United States v. Hopper, 27 F.3d 378, 385 (9th Cir.1994). He stated that his reason for awarding the third point was I am going to have him imprisoned for the same period of time as his brother. The guideline states what criteria determine eligibility for the third point. Equalization of sentences is not among them. These two men were equal in their criminality with respect to importing opium, so far as the record showed, but they were not equal in the timeliness of their acceptance of responsibility. The district court therefore lacked authority to adjust Say Pha Khang's sentence down the additional point for timely acceptance of responsibility. 26 AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.