|
|
|
| Acceptance of Responsibility |
|
United States v. Blanco,
No. 05-4087 (10th Cir., October 24, 2006) (Published): Federal Sentencing Guidelines; Acceptance of Responsibility: The Government's refusal to recommend a one-level downward departure for acceptance of responsibility when the accused requested an independent lab reweigh the drug evidence is legitimate and AFFIRMED.
|
|
|
United States v. Tom,
No. 05-2347 (10th Cir., August 1, 2007) (Published): Federal Sentencing Guidelines; Acceptance of Responsibility: Government appeal where the District Court erred in granting acceptance of responsibility in a case where Tom challenged the element of intent in the death of his son. The jury acquitted Tom of First-Degree Murder but convicted him of Second-Degree Murder on an aiding and abetting theory (Tom was only 18-years-old when his 15-year-old girlfriend killed their newborn on an Indian reservation).
|
|
|
United States v. Collins,
No. 07-7018 (10th Cir., January 4, 2008) (Published): Federal Sentencing Guidelines; Acceptance of Responsibility: Collins was charged with Possession of Five Grams or More of Cocaine Base w/Intent and Possession of Marijuana w/Intent. He offered to plead guilty to simple possession, but the Government rejected his offer so he went to trial where he admitted simple possession. He should receive a reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility, right? Uh, no. The panel noted that Collins lied to the police initially about the drugs in his car and also consulted with counsel before offering to plead guilty. This is another horrible decision that defies common sense. The legal lesson is that the circuit will look to conduct during the commission of the crime for "acceptance of responsibility" in addition to pre-trial behavior.
|
|
|
United States v. Lozano,
No. 06-1424 (10th Cir., January 30, 2008) (Published): Federal Sentencing Guidelines; Acceptance of Responsibility: Lozano was a bit player in a drug ring who made some small distributions of crack and was convicted of those, but acquitted on the conspiracy charge. She was sentenced to 63 months. She argued for an acceptance of responsibility reduction because the Government insisted that she enter a plea to the Conspiracy charge in addition to the distribution counts. She refused and went to trial. The District Court gave her a one point reduction because the decision to go to trial was partly strategic rather than based entirely on her state of mind. The panel held that although the District Court's approach might be "logical" it is precluded by circuit precedent (holding that the two-point reduction is an all-or-nothing proposition). Reversed and remanded for re-sentencing.
|
|
|
|
