Case Information
*1 Before BLACK, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jason Michael Calnan appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute oxycodone, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and attempt to possess with intеnt to distribute oxycodone, id. § 841(a)(1). Calnan argues that the district court clearly erred when it denied him a downward departure for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Calnan also argues that the district court plainly erred when it ordered Calnan to participate in drug treatment but delegated to the Probation Office whether the treatment would be inpatient or outpatient. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 24, 2005, Calnan and Cheryl Colarusso traveled from Boston, Massachusеtts, to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, with approximately $40,000 in cash to purchase 1580 milligrams of oxycodone from a confidential informant who worked with the U.S. Drug Enforсement Administration. DEA agents arrested Calnan after the attempted purchase, and Calnan directed them to the hotel room where Colarusso was wаiting. The agents arrested Colarusso, and she confessed to transporting some of the money from Boston and agreeing to transport some of the drugs on their return. When the agents left Calnan and Colarusso alone in a police car that was equipped with a listening device, Calnan asked Colarusso what she had told the agents and instructed her to “stick with” her story.
Calnan and Colarusso were indicted for conspiracy and attempt to purchase with intent to distribute оxycodone, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, and they pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. The Presentence Investigation Report recommended that Calnan rеceive a downward departure for acceptance of responsibility and calculated an offense level of 28 and a guidelines rangе of 78 to 97 months of imprisonment. The only objections relevant to this appeal were made by the government, which opposed the departure fоr acceptance of responsibility and advocated a two-level increase for obstruction of justice, see U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, based on Calnan’s statements to Colarusso in the police car following their arrest.
On October 11, 2005, during his sentencing hearing, Calnan testified that he confessed immediately after he was apprehended by the agents. Calnan stated that he led the police to Colarusso and his statements to her in the police car were merely an effort to calm her down. On cross-examination, Calnan testified that he did not know who provided him with the approximately $40,000 to purchase the drugs. The district сourt continued the sentencing hearing to review the testimony of Calnan.
On November 30, 2005, the district court resumed Calnan’s sentencing hearing. The district court found that Calnan’s testimony at the October 11, 2005, sentencing hearing contained several “inconsistencies.” The district court found *4 that Calnan “was not candid and forthright in responding to questions” and instead was “evasive and disingenuous regarding the relevant conduct and events surrounding his crimes.” Based on these findings, the district court ruled that Calnan was not entitled to the downward departure for acceptance of responsibility, but denied the motion of the government for an increase for obstruction of justice. After these rulings, Calnan had an offense level of 30 and an advisory sentencing range of 97 to 121 months of imprisonment.
After considering the apрropriate sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court imposed a sentence of 114 months of imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. The district court also ordered a three-year term of supervised release and imposed the following special condition:
Mr. Calnan shall pаrticipate in an approved treatment program for drug and/or alcohol abuse as directed by the United States Probation Officer, and abide by all supplemental conditions of treatment.
Participation may include inpatient or outpatient treatment if deemed necessary. . . .
Calnan did not object to this special condition.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“The district court’s determination of whether a defendant is entitled to a
reduction for acceptance of responsibility is a finding of fact that is entitled to great
dеference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.” United
*5
States v. Kendrick,
III. DISCUSSION
Calnan raises two arguments on aрpeal. First, Calnan argues that the district court clearly erred when it denied him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Second, Calnаn contends that the district court plainly erred when it delegated to the Probation Office whether Calnan will undergo inpatient or outpatient drug treatment аs a condition to his supervised release. We address each argument in turn.
A. The District Court Did Not Clearly Err When It Denied Calnan a Reduction for Acceptance of
Responsibility.
Section 3E1.1 provides, “If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense, decrease the оffense level by 2 levels.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). The application notes to section 3E1.1 list several “appropriate considerations” in determining whether the defеndant qualifies for the departure. Id. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1. The first consideration is “truthfully admitting the conduct comprising the offense(s) of conviction, and truthfully admitting or not falsely *6 denying any аdditional relevant conduct for which the defendant is accountable under § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct).” Id. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1(a). “However, a defendant who falsely denies, or frivоlously contests, relevant conduct that the court determines to be true has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of respоnsibility.” Id.
Calnan’s evasive and inconsistent testimony is sufficient to justify the decision of the district court to deny Calnan a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Relevant conduct for a conspiracy includes “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the cоurse of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.” Id. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). The origin of the money used to finance the drug purchase is conduct rеlevant to Calnan’s conspiracy charge, see id., and Calnan repeatedly stated that he did not know where he obtained the approximately $40,000 found at the time he was arrested. The district court did not clearly err when it denied Calnan a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
B. The Distriсt Court Did Not Plainly Err When It Imposed the Condition on Calnan’s Supervised Release.
Although “Article III courts may not delegate the ‘ultimate responsibility’ of
judicial functions to probation officers,” Nash,
IV. CONCLUSION
Calnan’s sentence is
AFFIRMED .