Court Opinion

ID: 9480171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:40:30.46247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:31.942594
License: Public Domain

*71RYAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring separately.
While I concur without reservation in the court’s judgment in this case and its disposition of the issues discussed in part II. of its opinion, as to part III., I concur in the result only. My limited agreement with the court’s reasoning in part III. is a result of my disagreement that the district court was justified in holding that the defendant’s refusal to identify for the government the persons “up the ladder” who are his drug suppliers is a sound basis for refusing to award the defendant a two point reduction of the relevant base offense level for “acceptance of responsibility.” In my judgment, on the facts of this case, the defendant’s refusal to identify his suppliers — a refusal based on the defendant’s claim that to do so “might be a death sentence” — is not a basis for refusing to award a two point reduction for “acceptance of responsibility,” and a conclusion that it is “without foundation.”
While the court observes in a footnote to its opinion that it is “uncertain that this is an appropriate consideration in determining whether to award a two point reduction for acceptance of responsibility,” I would go further and hold that it is not. Nevertheless, since the district court declined to award the two point reduction for the additional reason that the defendant refused to disclose his financial circumstances, a basis which entirely justifies the court’s refusal to award the two point reduction, I concur in the court’s judgment affirming the judgment of the district court.