Sentencing — acceptance of responsibility

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — acceptance of responsibility

Where the district court reasonably found that the defendant lied about how many firearms he illegally possessed, the court properly denied him any reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

“The court’s finding that Ghiassi possessed all eight of the guns that Wiseman purchased, and that his statements to the court denying the same were false, in turn supports the decision to deny him any credit for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to § 3E1.1. Ghiassi’s brief concedes that ‘if this Court determines the trial court did not err in making its relevant conduct determination then the denial of [credit for] acceptance of responsibility naturally follows.’ Ghiassi Br. 10. In light of that concession, our comments on this point may be brief. Although Ghiassi only pleaded guilty to the charge that he unlawfully possessed the AK?47, he does not dispute that the eight guns that Wiseman purchased for him constitute relevant conduct properly considered by the court in ascertaining his Guidelines offense level. A defendant is not required to affirmatively admit relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction in order to be credited for accepting responsibility, but neither may he falsely deny or frivolously contest such conduct. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(A)); see, e.g., United States v. Etchin, 614 F.3d 726, 739?40 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Chen, 497 F.3d 718, 720?21 (7th Cir. 2007). Ghiassi chose to dispute his possession of the additional firearms purchased by Wiseman, to label her a liar, and to make multiple statements to the court denying responsibility for those firearms that the court deemed incredible. The court committed no clear error in denying him credit for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to § 3E1.1(a). See, e.g., United States v. Black, 636 F.3d 893, 900 (7th Cir. 2011) (decision to deny credit for acceptance of responsibility is reviewed for clear error).”

Affirmed.

12-3596 U.S. v. Ghiassi

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Young, J., Rovner, J.