Opinion ID: 186369
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Government's preparation for the suppression hearing

Text: 44 Moore next argues that, to the extent the district court considered Moore's litigation of the suppression motion in denying him the additional reduction under § 3E1.1(b)(2), this Court should follow the majority of circuits in rejecting that basis for its ruling. Compare, e.g., United States v. Marquez, 337 F.3d 1203, 1211 (10th Cir.2003) (a district court may not penalize a defendant for bringing a non-frivolous motion to suppress by denying a reduction under subsection (b)(2)), with United States v. Rogers, 129 F.3d 76, 80-81 (2d Cir.1997) (denying defendant's request for reduction under § 3E1.1(b)(2) because, in terms of preparation by the government and the investment of judicial time, the suppression hearing was the main proceeding in this case and therefore defendant did not allow the court or the government to avoid the burdens of litigating the case). 45 In support of this argument, Moore points to the district court's observation: Clearly the government prepared for trial and filed — they didn't just have to prepare for a motions hearing but they had to file voir dire questions, other filings and jury instructions. This statement does not indicate the district court relied even in part upon the Government's preparation for the suppression hearing in denying Moore's request for the additional reduction; on the contrary, the court seems to have discounted that part of the Government's exertions. We therefore need not decide today whether such reliance is permissible.