Opinion ID: 180588
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court Erred By Reducing Williams's Sentence for Accepting Responsibility.

Text: The government argues that the district court erred by awarding Williams a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. We agree. To be eligible for the reduction, a defendant must clearly demonstrate[] acceptance of responsibility for his offense. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). As denoted by its plain language, the reduction is intended to reward defendants who express contrition for their wrongdoing and evidence a desire to reform their conduct. United States v. Henry, 883 F.2d 1010, 1011-12 (11th Cir.1989). The record establishes that Williams's conduct is wholly inconsistent with any acceptance of responsibility. We have held that it is erroneous to award a reduction for acceptance of responsibility when a defendant denies guilt in the face of evidence to the contrary, see United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 1233 (11th Cir.2010); see also United States v. Starks, 157 F.3d 833, 840-41 (11th Cir.1998), which is exactly what Williams did. Williams admitted he was guilty initially, but withdrew his plea and, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, insisted at trial and at sentencing that he was factually innocent. Williams's actions are indistinguishable from those of the defendant in United States v. Rubio, 317 F.3d 1240, 1243-44 (11th Cir.2003), where we affirmed the denial of a reduction because the defendant withdrew his plea of guilty and thereafter steadfastly failed to accept responsibility further by put[ting] the government to its proof and consistently attempt[ing] to minimize his role. Because the adjustment is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt[][and] is convicted[,] U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.2, the district court clearly erred by awarding Williams a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Williams argues that the error is harmless, but we disagree. Although the district court stated that it thought a ten-year sentence was reasonable, the court did not state that it would impose the same sentence even if it erred in calculating the applicable advisory guideline range. See United States v. Barner, 572 F.3d 1239, 1248 (11th Cir.2009).