Opinion ID: 220580
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scope of the Allocution

Text: Saani next argues the district court should not have considered his failure at the plea colloquy to admit all of the allegations against him because doing so penalized him unfairly for a decision made by his counsel. More particularly, defense counsel told the court Saani admitted he had failed to report his interest in foreign bank accounts, but Saani's allocution did not address the allegations he had underreported his income. According to Saani, it was not recalcitrance on his part that led him to allocute so narrowly. Rather, he claims, The record demonstrates that defense counsel had incomplete data from the government at the time of [his] plea and counsel advised [him] to permit her to evaluate the government's data before agreeing to [the amount of the tax loss in the Government's proffer]. When determining eligibility for an adjustment under § 3E1.1, a district court may require the defendant to provide a candid and full unraveling of the circumstances surrounding the offense of conviction, In re Sealed Case, 350 F.3d 113, 123 (D.C.Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted), and may consider whether the defendant truthfully admitted, or instead falsely denied or frivolously contested, any additional relevant conduct for which the defendant is accountable, § 3E1.1 cmt n. 1. Where, as here, a defendant is accused of making multiple false statements in his tax return, those alleged false statements are obviously relevant conduct for which the defendant is accountable. The district court did not, therefore, err by taking into account Saani's failure to admit he underreported his income regardless whether he was acting upon the advice of counsel; a defendant is responsible for the strategic decisions of his attorney. See Comm'r v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426, 436, 125 S.Ct. 826, 160 L.Ed.2d 859 (2005) (the attorney can make tactical decisions without consulting the client because [e]ven where the attorney exercises independent judgment without supervision by, or consultation with, the client, the attorney, as an agent, is obligated to act solely on behalf of ... the client-principal); Pittman ex rel. Sykes v. Franklin, 282 Fed. Appx. 418, 427 n. 6 (6th Cir.2008) (an attorney may act without consulting her client in tactical matters if [the] decision is in the best interest of the client and the lawyer is impliedly authorized to so act); cf. United States v. Morrison, 98 F.3d 619, 626 n. 8 (D.C.Cir.1996) (lawyer's failure to seek the client's opinion before making a strategic decision does not render that decision incompetent or inappropriate). And there can be no question defense counsel's decision to limit the scope of Saani's allocution was in fact strategic. []