Opinion ID: 710067
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Acceptance of Responsibility Determinations Under Sec.

Text: 3E1.1 91 The Sentencing Guidelines authorize a district court judge to reduce a defendant's base offense level by two points [i]f the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense. U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1(a). A further reduction of one point is authorized for a defendant whose base offense level is at least 16 and who has assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of his case. U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1(b). Demski asserts that the district court clearly erred when it denied her a reduction of three points pursuant to Sec. 3E1.1(a) and (b). 92 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. Sec. 3E1.1 cmt. 5. Our decisions have held that acceptance of responsibility is a factual matter that enjoys the protection of the 'clearly erroneous' standard. United States v. Beal, 960 F.2d 629, 632 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 880, 113 S.Ct. 230, 121 L.Ed.2d 166 (1992) (citation omitted). Because the trial court's assessment of a defendant's contrition will depend heavily on credibility assessments, the 'clearly erroneous' standard will nearly always sustain the judgment of the district court in this area. Id. Furthermore, the defendant bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to a reduction in base offense level for acceptance of responsibility. United States v. Schuler, 34 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir.1994). 93 Demski claims that she clearly demonstrated her acceptance of responsibility by pleading guilty, 18 admitting her role in the conspiracy, and cooperating fully with law enforcement officers. She notes that counsel for the Government, consistent with the plea agreement, stated at the sentencing hearing that there was a reasonable basis for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. Demski also notes that the probation office recommended a reduction in its original presentence report, but then withdrew that recommendation in an amended report filed the day before the sentencing hearing. In addition to asserting that the last-minute filing of the amended PSR prejudiced her ability to prepare fully for the sentencing hearing, Demski makes a more fundamental claim: that the court, by denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, punished [her] for exercising her right to challenge the accuracy of the presentence report.