[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 3, 2007
No. 07-10543 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00152-CR-A-N
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HAROLD OLENDA PEAGLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
_________________________
(August 3, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Harold Olenda Peagler appeals his 120-month sentence, imposed after he
pled guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count
of being a felon in possession of ammunition, all in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). On appeal, Peagler argues that the district court erred in failing to
apply an additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), because he timely notified the government of his intent to
plead guilty, thereby allowing the government to avoid preparing for trial.
Peagler concedes that the government has the sole discretion to move for a
one-level reduction pursuant to § 3E1.1(b) and acknowledges that we have
indicated that we will not disturb a sentence based solely on the government’s
failure to move for such a reduction. Nonetheless, Peagler argues that we should
be able to correct a defendant’s sentence where, as here, the government abuses its
discretion in failing to move for a reduction based on its extensive preparation for
sentencing.
We review the findings by the district court regarding a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility for clear error. United States v. Calhoon, 97 F.3d 518,
531 (11th Cir. 1996). A defendant bears the burden of establishing that he is
entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v.
Sawyer, 180 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 1999).
The guidelines provide for two separate reductions for acceptance of
responsibility:
(a) If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility
2
for his offense, decrease the offense level by 2 levels.
(b) If the defendant qualifies for a decrease under subsection (a), the
offense level determined prior to the operation of subsection (a) is
level 16 or greater, and upon motion of the government stating that
the defendant has assisted authorities in the investigation or
prosecution of his own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of
his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the
government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the government
and the court to allocate their resources efficiently, decrease the
offense level by 1 additional level.
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 (emphasis added). “Because the Government is in the best
position to determine whether the defendant has assisted authorities in a manner
that avoids preparing for trial, an adjustment under subsection (b) may only be
granted upon a formal motion by the Government at the time of sentencing.” Id.,
comment. (n.6) (emphasis added). We have rejected a defendant’s claim for an
additional one-level reduction pursuant to § 3E1.1(b) where there was no
government motion filed in support of such a reduction. U.S. v. Wade, 458 F.3d
1273, 1282 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 2096 (2007).
It appears, however, that we are not precluded from reviewing for an abuse
of discretion the government’s refusal to file a motion for a reduction pursuant to
§ 3E1.1(b). See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86, 112 S.Ct. 1840,
1844, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992) (holding, in the context of a motion for substantial
assistance, that “federal district courts have authority to review a prosecutor’s
refusal to file [a discretionary] motion . . . if they find that the refusal was based on
3
an unconstitutional motive,” such as the defendant’s race or religion); see also
United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825, 831 (11th Cir. 2000).
However, upon review of the record and sentencing transcript, and upon
consideration of the parties’ briefs, we discern no reversible error because the
government’s refusal to file the relevant motion was permissible and was not based
on an unconstitutional motive. Thus, the district court did not clearly err in refusing
to grant the reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
AFFIRMED.
4