Opinion ID: 164648
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Acceptance of Responsiblity

Text: We next consider whether the district court erred in not reducing Mr. Tagoe’s sentence for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. §3E1.1. Section 3E1.1(a) directs the sentencing court to “decrease the offense level by 2 levels” if -9- “the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” Acceptance of responsibility is a factual question and our review of the court’s determination is limited to clear error. See United States v. Spedalieri, 910 F.2d 707, 712 (10th Cir. 1990). The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he accepted responsibility. Id. “The sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. For this reason, the determination of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review.” U.S.S.G. §3E1.1, cmt. n.5. The district court is “in a better position than the appellate court to weigh the defendant’s sincerity of remorse and contrition.” United States v. Ochoa-Fabian, 935 F.2d 1139, 1143 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503-U.S. 961 (1992). We recognize that conviction by trial, where the defendant puts the government to its burden of proof, does not automatically preclude consideration of a reduction where the defendant clearly demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility for his criminal conduct. U.S.S.G. §3E1.1, cmt. n.2. However, in instances where a defendant goes to trial, “a determination that a defendant has accepted responsibility will be based primarily upon pre-trial statements and conduct.” Id. -10- On appeal, Mr. Tagoe contends he expressly admitted at trial he altered or made false statements regarding his receipts in support of his postal insurance claims, thereby showing his acceptance of responsibility for his criminal conduct. In support of this argument, Mr. Tagoe renews his argument that he admitted knowingly and willfully making materially false statements, but that he did not intend to defraud, or devise a scheme to defraud, the Postal Service. The district court determined otherwise, stating: The Court found that defendant never accepted responsibility for anything other than the inescapable fact that he blatantly altered documents when the evidence of alteration was so clear that he could not deny the acts. Beyond that, he did not come close to accepting responsibility for criminal conduct and indeed, almost consistently tried to shift the blame to the United States Postal Service. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude the district court did not commit clear error in refusing to adjust Mr. Tagoe’s offense level downward for acceptance of responsibility. As previously discussed, it is clear Mr. Tagoe made his “admissions” more in the nature of shifting the blame, or attempting to mitigate his conduct, rather than accepting full responsibility or expressing remorse for his conduct. This lack of acceptance of responsibility is further evidenced in his brief on appeal, where he continues to assert he submitted the altered receipts only to recover money actually due him when the Postal Service lost or failed to deliver his packages and the postal worker lost the applicable -11- original receipts, without which he could not prove his insurance claim. Moreover, as we previously noted, determinations of acceptance of responsibility are based primarily on pre-trial statements and conduct, but in this case, Mr. Tagoe points to no such statements or conduct to help carry his burden of showing he accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct. See U.S.S.G. §3E1.1, cmt. n.2. Given the circumstances of this case, our deference to the trial court’s assessment of credibility, and the clearly erroneous standard we apply, we sustain the district court’s conclusion a downward reduction for acceptance of responsibility under §3E.1.1 does not apply in this case.