Opinion ID: 3150208
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Responsibility Credit

Text: We review a denial of responsibility credit for clear error, while granting “great deference” to the district court. United States v. Collins, 796 F.3d 829, 835–36 (7th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). In this case, the district court denied Chapman’s request for acceptance of responsibility credit due to his behavior throughout the proceedings. Specifically, the district court noted that it did not believe Chapman was truthful in his trial testimony, and that Chapman’s statements at the sentencing hearing were not “forthright.” Since the district court is entitled to great deference and our circuit’s precedent has established that dishonesty and unsupported factual allegations are sufficient to deny acceptance of responsibility credit, see United States v. Jones, 52 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 1995), United States v. Munoz, 610 F.3d 989, 993–94 (7th Cir. 2010), we hold that the district court did not commit error, let alone clear error, in denying Chapman’s request. 16 Nos. 14-3311 and 14-3363 Chapman argues that since he admitted to committing the crimes, he is entitled to the acceptance of responsibility credit. However, Chapman’s acknowledgment of his involvement in the drug transactions does not mandate that the district court grant the reduction. See Jones, 52 F.3d at 701 (finding that if a defendant has not truthfully described and accepted responsibility, “bare statements of remorse and acceptance of responsibility will not compel the reduction”) (citation omitted).