United States v. Haggerty, 731 F.3d 1094

Haggerty pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and to possession of a firearm by a felon.
The government agreed to move for a one-level § 3E1.1(b) reduction in sentence in exchange for his timely guilty plea.
The presentence report applied § 3E1.1(a) and (b) reductions, resulting in a total offense level of 24 and a guidelines range of 63–78 months.
The district court granted a two-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a) but denied the § 3E1.1(b) motion, citing personal beliefs about accepting responsibility.
The district court sentenced Haggerty to 72 months, and the government and Haggerty appealed the denial of § 3E1.1(b).
The panel reversed and remanded to consider § 3E1.1(b) criteria consistent with the guidelines and commentary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court err by denying § 3E1.1(b) without proper criteria analysis?	Haggerty	Haggerty	Yes; remanded for proper § 3E1.1(b) consideration.
Whether the government motion is required and its criteria control the reduction?	Haggerty	Haggerty	The district court must consider the § 3E1.1(b) criteria; no discretionary denial based on personal views.
Is the timeliness and governmental avoidance of trial a required basis for § 3E1.1(b)?	Haggerty	Haggerty	Timeliness and resource avoidance are central criteria; court must assess them on remand.

United States v. Williamson, 598 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 2010) (court and government must be satisfied the § 3E1.1(b) criteria are met)
United States v. Stacey, 531 F.3d 565 (8th Cir. 2008) (inquiry must be context specific after government motion)
United States v. Sloley, 464 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2006) (§ 3E1.1(b) structure divides decision between court and prosecutor)
United States v. Ortiz, 63 F.3d 952 (10th Cir. 1995) (remand for consideration of improper grounds)
United States v. Marquez, 337 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2003) (remand when district court fails to consider timely acceptance and other criteria)