United States v. Coleman, 884 F.3d 67

D'Hati Coleman pled guilty in the District of Maine to distribution of cocaine base arising from a September 3, 2014 Bangor sale to a cooperating informant.
During that transaction he boasted of being a "pimp" for several women; separately, he was arrested in New Haven, CT on September 9 with a woman who stated he had transported her from Maine for prostitution and paid her in drugs.
The presentence report treated the prostitution-related activity in Maine and Connecticut as "relevant conduct" under USSG §1B1.3; Coleman initially contested those facts but later (at times) admitted involvement in Maine and stipulated to a 23‑month time‑served credit for relevant conduct.
At sentencing the district court found Coleman had promoted prostitution in both states, also found he falsely denied involvement in the Connecticut conduct, and concluded he had not accepted responsibility, denying a §3E1.1 reduction.
The district court applied the parties’ amended stipulation credit, resulting in a guideline range of 23–34 months and imposed a 32‑month sentence; Coleman appealed, arguing (1) the prostitution conduct was not relevant conduct, and (2) the court erred in denying acceptance‑of‑responsibility credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prostitution-related conduct was "relevant conduct" under USSG §1B1.3	Gov: Conduct was part of same course of conduct/common scheme and thus relevant; defendant had conceded relevance below and stipulated to time‑served credit	Coleman: The prostitution statements were bragging and not part of the offense of conviction, so not relevant conduct	Court: Coleman waived challenge to relevance by (a) conceding relevance below and (b) stipulating for time‑served credit tied to relevant conduct; issue not reviewable on merits
Whether Coleman was entitled to an offense‑level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under USSG §3E1.1	Gov: Denial of reduction proper because Coleman repeatedly and falsely denied additional relevant conduct (Connecticut) and equivocated about Maine conduct	Coleman: Even if conduct was relevant, he sufficiently accepted responsibility to warrant the reduction	Court: No clear error in district court’s factual finding that Coleman denied relevant conduct and engaged in "game playing," so denial of §3E1.1 credit affirmed

United States v. Tierney, 760 F.2d 382 (1st Cir. 1985) (party cannot assert inconsistent positions to benefit from both)
United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (broad discretion to consider relevant conduct under §1B1.3)
United States v. D'Angelo, 802 F.3d 205 (1st Cir. 2015) (sentencing facts drawn from PSI and hearing transcript after guilty plea)
United States v. Deppe, 509 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2007) (standard: acceptance‑of‑responsibility factual findings reviewed for clear error)
United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (defendant must candidly and genuinely accept responsibility)
Perry v. Blum, 629 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (judicial estoppel protects integrity of judicial process against inconsistent positions)
United States v. Melvin, 730 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2013) (may not disclaim evidence on appeal after relying on it below)