Opinion ID: 3009917
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: If the defendant qualifies for a decrease

Text: under subsection (a), the offense level determined prior to the operation of subsection (a) is level 16 or greater, and the defendant has assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of his own misconduct by taking one or more of the following steps:
information to the government concerning his own involvement in the offense; or
intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the court to allocate its resources efficiently, decrease the offense level by 1 additional level. USSG § 3E1.1. The district court is particularly well suited to evaluate a defendant's acceptance of responsibility. Therefore, its determination can only be reversed if we find it was clearly erroneous. United States v. Pardo, 25 F.3d 1187, 1193 (3d Cir. 1994). Felton argues that the district court failed to grant him a reduction of one level pursuant to subsection 3E1.1(b) because it thought that he had an offense level of only 15 instead of 16. The transcript of the sentencing hearing and the ensuing judgment support this argument. Prior to the operation of subsection 1B1.1(a), Felton's offense level was sixteen, based on a base offense level of ten, a four-level increase for loss greater than $20,000, and a two-level increase for Felton's role as organizer. The court, however, said with respect to this issue: [B]y taking off those two points, Mr. Felton is no longer eligible for the additional point on acceptance of responsibility. Because he's down into a -- what's it, a 15 instead of a 16. So all of that having been said, that's not to say Mr. Keller, because I told you I would, I'm going to give you the two points on that particular objection. App. at 107 (Transcript). The court repeated this reasoning in the judgment as follows: 2C1.1 states that if the offense involved more than one bribe or extortion increase by 2 levels. The offense here involved one bribe and five gratuities. Because it is unclear whether this aggregate behavior can receive the 2 level increase, the two level increase was deleted. As a result, the additional adjustment for acceptance of responsibility in paragraph 46 was deleted as well. App. at 115 (Judgment). The court's explanation was clear error.3 The government argues that Felton was not granted the additional one-level reduction because the district court could have made independent findings of fact that Felton failed to assist authorities. The district court, however, never made any such findings. The only evidence of Felton's failure to assist that the government can find is an offhand remark by the government's counsel that Felton embellished certain facts surrounding the offense in the course of aiding the authorities. 3 . The government maintains that Felton never objected to the district court's refusal to give a three-level reduction and accordingly waived his right to appeal unless the mistake was plain error. United States v. Pollen, 978 F.2d 78, 88 (3d Cir. 1992) (sentencing disputes reviewed for plain error where defendant fails to object in the district court but finding that the miscalculation in that case was plain error), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 2332, 124 L. Ed.2d 244 (1993). Under a plain error standard, the court is concerned only with errors that seriously affect substantial rights or compromise the fairness of the proceedings. Id. This circuit and others have found that the miscalculation of a defendant's offense level certainly is error that seriously affect[s] [the defendant's] rights, and so amounts to plain error. Id. at 90; United States v. Moss, 9 F.3d 543, 553 (6th Cir. 1993) (application of clearly incorrect base level offense deemed clear error); United States v. Plaza-Garza, 914 F.2d 345, 348 (1st Cir. 1990). The district court never referred to this comment, nor did it explicitly find that Felton failed to assist. The district court's reason for denying the third offense level decrease for acceptance of responsibility was clear error. We remand the case for resentencing on this issue.