The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Doigny, 940 F.2d 1536 (9th Cir. 1991):
The district court's determination of a defendant's acceptance of responsibility for his crime is entitled to great deference and we review it only for clear error. United States v. Smith, 905 F.2d 1296, 1301 (9th Cir.1990). The district court is free to consider both pre- and post-guilty plea conduct to determine whether a defendant accepted responsibility for his actions. See United States v. Watt, 910 F.2d 587, 593 (9th Cir.1990).
Here, although Doigny admitted deceiving his victims by misrepresenting that he had invested their money in annuity accounts, he continued to insist that he had no intent to defraud the victims when he diverted the money into his own business because he considered the business to be a sound investment. Under these circumstances, the district court committed no clear error by finding that Doigny had not accepted responsibility for his actions. See, e.g., United States v. Corley, 909 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir.1990) (no error in district court's denial of adjustment to defendant who "was in a state of denial as to some of the reasons for his involvement" in criminal conduct and minimized his role in the offense). 1
II. Obstruction of Justice
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.