Opinion ID: 772699
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reduction of Smith's Offense Level

Text: 44 The sentencing court's acceptance of responsibility determination is entitled to great deference on review. USSG § 3E1.1, comment(n.5). This Court reviews for clear error a district court's finding that a defendant is not entitled to a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Tilford, 224 F.3d 865, 867 (6th Cir. 2000). However, the standard of review is de novo where... the only issued presented is the propriety of the application of the reduction to uncontested facts. Id. The reduction of Defendant Smith's offense by two levels instead of three levels for acceptance of responsibility is not error. 45 At sentencing, Judge Beckwith invited defense counsel to address the issue of whether Defendant Smith was entitled to a three level reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. Judge Beckwith noted that the additional one level reduction is typically awarded when a defendant promptly notifies the government of his intention to plead guilty. Defendant Smith did not notify the government until the evening before trial. The record reflects the following: 46 THE COURT: The extra point for acceptance of responsibility under Section 3E1.1(b) may be awarded for either of two reasons; first timely providing complete information to the government concerning his own involvement in the offense; or, second, timely notifying authorities. 47 Anything you would like to say on the issue of providing complete information to the government? 48 MR. OAKLEY [PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, we have never spoken to Mr. Smith. We don't have any information as to what he would say to us. 49 THE COURT: You agree with that, Mr. Hudson? 50 MR. HUDSON [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That would be accurate, Your Honor. 51 THE COURT: All right. So clearly Mr. Smith does not qualify under Subsection(b)(1). The only way he could qualify for the extra point is if, under (b) (2), he timely notified authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, permitting the Court and the government to allocate its resources efficiently. 52 I think clearly on this record that Mr. Smith is not entitled to that additional reduction under Section (b) (4), timely notification. That would increase his offense level to 24. And that would move him from a sentencing range of 84 to 105months, to a sentencing range of 92 to 115 months. 53 Before we move beyond that point I will give both counsel any - the opportunity to make any comments that they would like. 54 MR. OAKLEY: Nothing from the United States, Your Honor. 55 THE COURT: Mr. Hudson? 56 MR. HUDSON: Did you say, I am sorry, Your Honor, did you say before we move beyond that point? 57 THE COURT: Right. It's my opinion, and I haven't heard anything to the contrary, unless you have something new on the point, that it's going to be my ruling that Mr. Smith is not entitled to the third acceptance or responsibility point reduction because he did not accept responsibility and notify the government in a timely fashion, nor did he provide complete information to the government, and therefore, he does not qualify. 58 MR. HUDSON: I have no more objections nor any more information on that Your Honor. 59 (J.A. at 104-05.) 60 The district court did not err in reducing Defendant Smith's offense level by only two points instead of three for acceptance of responsibility. Pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, a defendant may decrease his offense level by two levels if he clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense. See USSG § 3E1.1(a). In United States v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174, 1184 (6th Cir. 1994), this Court found that the district court did not err in limiting a defendant's reduction to two levels because the defendant waited until five days before trial to enter his guilty plea. Due to the delay by the defendant, the government was compelled to prepare its entire case for trial. Similarly, Defendant Smith waited until 6:00 p.m. on the eve of trial to notify the government of his decision to plead guilty requiring the government to prepare its entire case as in Bashara. In light of the above outlined facts, the district court did not err in limiting Smith's reduction to two levels for acceptance of responsibility.