Sentencing; Denial of a two-level reduction for “acceptance of responsibility” (USSG § 3E1.1(a)); Inconsistent conduct; United States v Hollis; Substantive reasonableness; 18 USC § 3553(a) factors; Claim the district court gave inordinate weight to the nature & circumstances of the offense

The court rejected defendant-Simpson’s argument that the district court improperly denied him a sentence reduction for “acceptance of responsibility” where his repeated references to the shooting as an “accident” were inconsistent with such acceptance. It also rejected his substantive reasonableness challenge to his sentence. During jury selection, he pled guilty to carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury, as well as using, carrying, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. The district court sentenced him to 217 months, “consisting of a top-of-the-Guidelines sentence of 97 months for the carjacking plus the mandatory minimum 120 months for the firearm offense[.]” Appealing his sentence, he first argued that he should have been given a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The district court declined to apply the reduction after considering the victim’s testimony at sentencing, and focusing on Simpson’s continued assertions that the shooting was an accident. The court cited the holding in Hollis, that even though a defendant may “demonstrate[] ‘significant evidence’ of acceptance of responsibility, such as by pleading guilty, the key inquiry becomes whether that evidence is ‘outweighed by conduct inconsistent with such acceptance.’” Simpson argued that he pled guilty “‘prior to the commencement of trial,’” because the jury had not been selected or sworn in. Declining to determine when a trial “begins” for purposes of § 3E1.1(a), the court found that the record sufficiently supported the district court’s findings that Simpson’s claims that the shooting was “accidental” were not credible. The district court pointed to his “repeated minimizations of his role in the offense and his late acceptance of responsibility” as conduct not compatible with acceptance of responsibility. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in its finding under § 3E1.1(a). It also rejected his substantive reasonableness challenge, noting his sentence fell within the Guidelines range and that the district court engaged in a comprehensive, extended discussion of the § 3553(a) factors. The “district court considered the nature and circumstances of Simpson’s offense in multiple capacities, but nothing in the Sentencing Transcript shows that [it] gave that consideration an ‘unreasonable amount of weight.’” Affirmed.