09-2715 & 09-2788 U.S. v. Quintero

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Acceptance of responsibility

Where a defendant committed perjury in his co-defendant's trial, the government did not breach the plea agreement by refusing to recommend a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

"Quintero lost any hope of an entitlement to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility when he committed perjury. Quintero argues that although he committed perjury in Martinez's trial, it was because he was attempting to take all the blame for the robbery and shield his girlfriend from any liability. He therefore claims that his perjury was an acceptance of responsibility and did not violate the terms of the plea agreement. Quintero misunderstands what it means to accept responsibility. Testifying falsely to exculpate Martinez is detrimental to the justice process and constitutes obstruction of justice. United States v. Arambula, 238 F.3d 865, 870 (7th Cir. 2001). Quintero is therefore presumed under the sentencing guidelines to have denied responsibility. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, Application Note 4; United States v. Larsen, 909 F.2d 1047, 1049 (7th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the district court did not err when it found that Quintero was not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and was eligible for a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice."

Affirmed.

09-2715 & 09-2788 U.S. v. Quintero

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Lozano, Moody, JJ., Kanne, J.

Full Text