United States v. David Searer, Jr., 636 F. App'x 258

David Searer pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana.
While on pretrial release, Searer repeatedly tested positive for opiates and amphetamines, diluted urine samples, and failed to attend court-ordered substance-abuse treatment; his bond was ultimately revoked.
Probation recommended denying a two-level USSG §3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; Searer objected, citing his addiction and inability to obtain inpatient treatment due to lack of insurance.
The district court found the continued drug use while on bond inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility and denied the reduction, but imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 24 months.
On appeal, Searer challenged the denial; the Sixth Circuit reviewed the denial for clear error and affirmed.

Issue	Searer’s Argument	Government/District Court Argument	Held
Whether defendant is entitled to a two-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under USSG §3E1.1	Searer: Continued drug use while on bond reflected addiction and was unrelated to the marijuana conspiracy; mitigating circumstances (couldn’t find inpatient care due to no insurance)	Continued drug use while awaiting sentencing was drug-related conduct tied to the lifestyle underlying the offense and thus inconsistent with acceptance	Denial affirmed — no clear error in finding the post-plea drug use related and inconsistent with acceptance
Standard of review for denial of acceptance-of-responsibility credit	Searer: Where facts are undisputed, review should be de novo	Circuit: Following Supreme Court precedent, denial of credit is reviewed deferentially for clear error	Clear-error review applies; appellate court found no clear error and affirmed

United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2010) (sets out general reasonableness review of sentences)
United States v. Surratt, 87 F.3d 814 (6th Cir. 1996) (denial of acceptance-of-responsibility reviewed for clear error)
United States v. Walker, 182 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 1999) (post-plea drug use related to drug conviction supports denial of credit)
United States v. Zimmer, 14 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 1994) (use of drugs while on bond related to marijuana-manufacturing conviction)
United States v. Humphreys, [citation="108 F. App'x 329"] (6th Cir. 2004) (denial of credit where defendant tested positive for drugs on bond)
United States v. Redmond, [citation="475 F. App'x 603"] (6th Cir. 2012) (post-plea drug-related conduct and attempts to further drug activity supported denying acceptance credit)
Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (2001) (clarifies deference in appellate review of Guidelines application)