Ninth Circuit Blog: Case o' The Week: One Outta Three? May Earn the Full Three! - Acceptance of Responsibility and Relevant Conduct

Hon. Judge Marsha Berzon

Ninth skeptical of "safe" sentencing . . .

United States v. Jeffrey Green, 2019 WL 3939348 (9thCir. Aug. 21, 2019), decision available here.

Players: Decision by Judge Berzon, joined by Judges Tashima and W. Fletcher.

Facts: While arresting Green cops found a gun in his pocket. Id. A later search produced two more pistols, locked inside a safe accessible from Green’s apartment. Id. The guns in the safe had been reported stolen. Id.

Green plead open to the § 922(g) charge, admitting guilt for the gun in his pocket. Id. & n.1.

[Ed. Note: Unlikely that the Rehaif knowledge element was charged, or admitted, in this open plea].

Probation hit Green with higher guidelines for three guns, plus a “stolen weapon” guidelines bump for the guns in the safe. Id. The PSR denied Green acceptance, because he had not admitted to possessing the pistols in the safe. Id. Green objected, arguing the government had not proven that the firearms in the safe were in his possession. Id.

At a sentencing evidentiary hearing, the district court heard Green express dismay in a post-arrest recorded call, when he learned a locksmith had been brought in to open the safe. Id. at *2. The court concluded Green was good for all of the guns, and for the stolen gun bump, and those higher associated guidelines. The district court left open the question of whether Green should get a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

At the second sentencing hearing, the court decided against the acceptance reduction -- before it heard the defendant’s allocution. Id. at *2.

Issue(s): “Must a district court decide on a defendant’s eligibility for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction in his Guidelines level before listening to the defendant’s allocution?” Id. at *1.

Held: “Our answer is ‘No.’” Id.

“A misapprehension of law occurred here. The district court believed that it had to determine whether Green had accepted responsibility before allowing Green his opportunity to allocute. That is not so.” Id. at *3.

“We hold that the sentencing court erred by concluding that it could not first hear from the defendant before determining whether a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was warranted under the Sentencing Guidelines. We also conclude that this misapprehension was plain error and so vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.” Id. at *7.

Of Note: Green’s counsel did not raise this issue on appeal – briefing was sought by the Ninth. Id. at *5. Judge Berzon gets to plain error review anyway, with a useful analysis of plain error factors. Id.

Note the Ninth also rejects the government’s argument that Green waived the claim – a nice appellate-waiver distinction to tuck away for future use. Id. at 5 & n.4.

In an encouraging nod for Green, the Ninth concludes the plain error analysis by predicting he has a shot at a lower sentence on remand. Id. at *6.

The Ninth’s “reasonable probability of a lower sentence” analysis is of particular interest – see “How to Use” below.

How to Use: Relying on the Ninth’s old Ginn case, the district court denied acceptance because Green only admitted guilt as to one gun.

“Not so fast,” concludes Judge Berzon. Id. at *6 - *7.

In Ginn, the defendant didn’t admit all charged counts. Here, by contrast, Green admitted the pocketed revolver in the charged count – he just didn’t admit additional “relevant conduct” guns. Id. Judge Berzon explains that a defendant doesn’t lose acceptance for not admitting relevant conduct (although acceptance may be at risk if a defendant falsely denies, or frivolously contests, relevant conduct. Id). at *6. Green, she muses, may thread the acceptance needle on remand. Id. at *7.

Probation and AUSAs often want defendants to shoulder sins back to Adam’s apple to earn acceptance. This Green discussion on acceptance is thus the most intriguing part of this interesting decision. Read Green when navigating the “acceptance” labyrinth in the face of relevant conduct worries.

Hon. Judge Danielle Hunsaker

For Further Reading: Last week President Trump nominated Judge Danielle Hunsaker, an Oregonian appellate judge, to Judge O’Scannlain’s vacant Ninth seat. See article here.

Judge Hunsaker was jointly recommended by Oregon Senators Wyden and Merkley (D). See Ballotpedia entry here.

Like Ninth Circuit Judges Ikuta, Watford, and Owens, Judge Hunsaker was a Ninth Circuit clerk, having worked for Judge O’Scannlain early in her career. Id.