Opinion ID: 196212
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Extraordinary Act

Text: 12 Following Bennett I, the district court found that the $660,000 settlement agreement constituted an extraordinary act that seldom occurs in the criminal courts, for which Bennett should be rewarded.... The district court carefully avoided explicit reliance on acceptance of responsibility, apparently in deference to Bennett I, 37 F.3d at 698 (stressing that restitution must be  'genuinely voluntary, rather than motivated primarily by a collateral consideration such as a desire to settle the civil lawsuit' ) (quoting United States v. Miller, 991 F.2d 552, 553 (9th Cir.1993)); cf. United States v. Hendrickson, 22 F.3d 170, 176 (7th Cir.) (rejecting civil forfeiture, in light of its involuntary nature, as basis for finding of extraordinary acceptance of responsibility), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 209, 130 L.Ed.2d 138 (1994). Bennett I also held, however, that the civil suit settlement was not genuinely voluntary, 37 F.3d at 698, and that  'restitution is relevant to the extent it shows acceptance of responsibility.'  Id. (quoting Miller, 991 F.2d at 553) (emphasis added). Consequently, whether or not the civil suit settlement constituted an extraordinary act, there has been no showing that it formed a material basis for either a downward adjustment or a downward departure, let alone for establishing restitutionary conduct outside the heartland. See Rivera, 994 F.2d at 947. 13 As the only ground for the challenged downward departure had been foreclosed by Bennett I, which plainly held that the civil suit settlement was not genuinely voluntary within the meaning of U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1, see Bennett I, 37 F.3d at 698, and could not form the basis for a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, it could afford no permissible basis for the 15-month downward departure. See Miller, 991 F.2d at 553 (sentencing court may depart downward on basis of restitutionary conduct only if it evinces an acceptance of responsibility substantially greater than that required for a downward adjustment under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1). 14