holding, under the amended § 3E1.1, that "[i]nsignificant evidence cannot outweigh a plea of guilty before trial, truthful admission of the elements of the offense, and absence of a false denial of technically relevant conduct"
How later courts described this case
- holding, under the amended § 3E1.1, that "[i]nsignificant evidence cannot outweigh a plea of guilty before trial, truthful admission of the elements of the offense, and absence of a false denial of technically relevant conduct"
- finding sufficient predicate to undertake a strip search where a traveler was returning from an unusually short trip, showed external signs of intoxication, was wearing cloth- ing inappropriate for the climate, and had a suspicious bulge beneath his clothes
- holding that “exercise of a constitutional right cannot be held against a defendant for purposes of the adjustment, although it may reduce the amount of evidence in his favor”
- noting that directing a suspect to undress amounts to a strip search
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by United States v. Williams, 18 F. App'x 637 (2001)
See id. at 1158-60. Vance is also distinguishable because it was not a “relevant conduct” case.
The opinion
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially.
Because 1 believe that the defendant was denied his right to allocution, I would not reach the issue of acceptance of responsibility. However, were I to do so, I would reach the same result as the majority. For that reason, I concur.