Opinion ID: 2795144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The 3-Level Reduction

Text: As with an enhancement, we review for clear error a sentencing court’s factual findings regarding an acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction. United States v. Davis, 442 F.3d 1003, 1009 (7th Cir. 2006). U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 provides that if a defendant “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense,” then he is eligible for a decrease of either two or three offense levels. To qualify for the reduction, a defendant must “(1) demonstrate sincere remorse or contrition, (2) truthfully admit the conduct comprising the offense, and (3) neither falsely deny nor frivolously contest relevant conduct.” United States v. Eschman, 227 F.3d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, Sandidge pled guilty to possession of the firearm, but, as discussed above, he denied having pointed that firearm at No. 14-1492 15 Harris. The district court concluded that: (1) Sandidge pointed the loaded firearm at Harris; (2) Sandidge falsely denied that conduct; and (3) the gun-pointing was “relevant conduct” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The district court therefore concluded that Sandidge was not entitled to the 3- level reduction. Sandidge argues that he should have been given the 3- level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. He seems to concede that, had he actually pointed the firearm at Harris, such actions would constitute “relevant conduct” under the Guidelines. Sandidge’s argument on appeal, then, piggybacks entirely on his contention that the district court erred in concluding that he pointed the loaded firearm at Harris. He argues that because that finding was erroneous, so was the denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. We already concluded above that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Sandidge pointed the loaded firearm at Harris. It follows that the district court did not err in denying Sandidge the 3-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.