United States v. Antonio Hollis, 823 F.3d 1045

Antonio Jerome Hollis pleaded guilty to a firearms conspiracy and being a felon in possession of a firearm after a seven-count indictment that was severed into two trial tracks.
The district court’s pretrial order set deadlines for motions for rearraignment and warned late motions could forfeit § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility credit.
Hollis moved for rearraignment one day late for Track 1 and twenty-two days late for Track 2, but pled guilty before either trial began.
At sentencing the probation report did not award the two-level § 3E1.1(a) reduction; the district court denied it solely because Hollis’s plea was filed after the pretrial deadline, citing wasted government preparation.
Hollis appealed, arguing the district court improperly denied § 3E1.1(a) credit based only on the timing-related waste of government resources.
The Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded, concluding the district court conflated § 3E1.1(a) and (b) and improperly used resource-waste as the sole basis to deny the (a) reduction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district court may deny § 3E1.1(a) credit solely because a guilty plea was untimely and caused government preparation costs	Hollis: (plaintiff) his timely guilty plea before trial shows acceptance of responsibility; delay does not negate sincerity and resource-waste is not a proper basis under (a)	Government: plea was untimely under the pretrial order, causing wasted resources; that timeliness justifies denying (a) credit	Court: No — timeliness may be considered under (a) only to assess sincerity; waste of government resources is not a proper sole basis to deny (a) and belongs to (b) analysis

United States v. Webb, 335 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2003) (deference to district court factfinding on acceptance of responsibility)
United States v. Edwards, 272 F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for factual determinations on acceptance)
United States v. Coss, 677 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2012) (de novo review when only legal question presented)
United States v. Reaume, 338 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2003) (principles on review standards)
United States v. Kumar, 617 F.3d 612 (2d Cir. 2010) (waste of government resources may not be considered under § 3E1.1(a))
United States v. Kennedy, [citation="595 F. App'x 584"] (6th Cir. 2014) (panel previously suggested resource-waste could factor into (a) and (b); discussed and distinguished)
Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers Ass’n v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Transp., 654 F.3d 654 (6th Cir. 2011) (avoid interpretations that render statutory provisions superfluous)
Menuskin v. Williams, 145 F.3d 755 (6th Cir. 1998) (canon against rendering statutory language meaningless)