Sentencing; “Acceptance of responsibility” reduction; USSG § 3E1.1(a) & cmt n 2; Discrepancies in sentencing with defendant’s co-conspirators; Mitigating evidence; Supervised release conditions; Discretionary reduction under USSG app C supp, amend 821; Reassignment; Motion for relief under 28 USC § 2255

The court held that the district court properly declined to reduce defendant-Coleman’s sentence for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(a) where it was offered five years after his sentencing. It also rejected his claims as to sentencing disparities, consideration of mitigating evidence, and supervised release conditions. But it remanded for consideration under Amendment 821. A jury convicted Coleman of conspiracy to distribute drugs. At sentencing, he “didn’t present any mitigating evidence or take accountability for his actions.” His recommended Guidelines range, including a career-offender enhancement, was 262 to 327 months. The district court varied upwards and sentenced him to 340 months. He later successfully moved for relief under § 2255 based on ineffective assistance of counsel related to the career-offender enhancement. His recommended Guidelines range without that enhancement was 135 to 168 months. This time, Coleman presented evidence of childhood hardship and submitted a written apology, taking responsibility for his actions. The district court considered this evidence at resentencing. It sentenced him to 168 months, reimposed the same fine, and reduced his supervised-release term to six years with the same conditions. On appeal, Coleman argued that it erred by relying on the Guidelines commentary to deny him a two-level sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The court noted that § 3E1.1 cmt. n.2 “clarifies that the adjustment ‘is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse.’” The court rejected Coleman’s assertion that the district court was “‘reflexively defer[ing]’” to Note 2, finding that “the district court properly applied the plain text of § 3E1.1(a).” The court concluded the “guideline’s text, history, and purpose unambiguously foreclose Coleman’s efforts to receive a reduction for post-sentencing acceptance of responsibility.” It also rejected his sentencing disparity argument, noting that the “district court didn’t err by focusing on national sentencing disparities” and that his co-conspirators, unlike Coleman, pled guilty and cooperated with law enforcement. It also held that the district court did not commit plain error by concluding “there was ‘no causal connection between the mitigating evidence and the crime.’” The court also upheld the challenged conditions of his supervised release. Lastly, it remanded for consideration under Amendment 821, but it denied his request to reassign the case to a different judge. Affirmed and remanded.