Defendant-Appellant Guadalupe Marquez entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), (b)(1)(B), reserving his right to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress. The district court sentenced him to 41 months of imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised release. In so doing, the district court granted a two-level reduction of his base offense level for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a)(2001), but declined to reduce the offense level by an additional level under § 3E1.1(b).
On аppeal Mr. Marquez argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because (1) the search of his recreational vehicle (“RV”) exceeded the scope of his consent, and (2) the search was unsupported by probable cause. In addition, Mr. Marquez argues that the district court erroneously declined to grant the third-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Background
In February 2002, an officer with the Kansas Highway Patrol (“the officer”) stopped to offer assistance to two men who were working on the engine of an RV in the parking lot of a sandwich shop in Colby, Kansas. The conversation that ensued was recorded by a microphone worn on the officer’s uniform and a video camera mounted in his patrol car. The officer asked whether the men required assistance and Mr. Marquez responded by informing him of the nature of the engine problems they were experiencing and inquiring whether there were any mechanics located nearby. In response to further questioning, Mr. Marquez indicated that he was a Mexican citizen who had resided in California for the past 17 years, that he was going to Boston, Massachusetts for a two-month vacation, and that his passenger was out of work. The officer thereafter wished the two men well on their vacation and began to walk away when he quickly returned and asked if they would be willing to answer a few more questions.
After he reinitiated the conversation, the officer asked Mr. Marquez if there were any guns or drugs in the RV. After Mr. Marquez responded in the negative, the officer asked if he could search the vehicle. *1206 Mr. Marquez agreed, and after retrieving the keys from the front seat of the vehicle and unlocking the RV’s door, he motioned with his hand for the officer tо enter. The officer testified that upon entering the RV he saw no toiletries of any kind, no clothes in the closets, no food in the refrigerator, and that the refrigerator was not operating. He thereafter inspected a bench seat on the passenger side of the RV that was covered with a removable cushion. The officer testified that he knew from experience that such benches often double as storage areas, and after removing the cushion he discovered a piece of plywood that had been nailed down to the bench. Based on the lack of amenities in the RV, Mr. Marquez’s indication that he was on a two-month vacation, and the suspicious condition of the storage bench, the officer suspected that the two men were transporting drugs and therefore decided to attempt to gain access to the compartment.
The officer thereafter exited the RV to retrieve some tools to assist in opening the compartment. Before he had a chance to return to the RV, a deputy with the Thomas County Sheriffs Department (“the deputy”) arrived on the scene to see whether he could be of assistancе. After explaining the situation to the deputy, the officer and the deputy re-entered the RV and began to remove the nailed-down plywood covering. The deputy testified that upon entering the RV he could smell the odor of raw marijuana. II R. Doc. 39 at 62. After the officer showed the deputy the storage bench, the officer used a screwdriver to pry off the plywood covering, which revealed a second, newer piece of wood that was secured to the bench with screws. Id. at 22-23. After unscrewing the second piece of wood with an electric drill, they discovered several packages of marijuana and placed both men under arrest. Id. at 23.
In his motion to suppress Mr. Marquez argued,
inter alia,
that the search of the RV exceeded the scope of his consent when the officer pried open the nailed-down covering on the storage compartment. The district court disagreed, holding first that the search did not exceed the scope of Mr. Marquez’s consent because, under
Florida v. Jimeno,
On May 13, 2002, one week after the district court denied his motion to suppress, Mr. Marquez entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. The presentence report (“PSR”) concluded that Mr. Marquez was eligible for a two-level reduction of his offense level for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), but that a three-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b) was not warranted because he did not plead guilty in a timely manner or timely provide complete information concerning his involvement in the offеnse. Mr. Marquez objected, arguing that he timely notified *1207 the government of Ms intent to plead guilty and that he timely admitted his involvement in the offense and “described everything he knew about the case to the law enforcement personnel when he was first apprehended.” IV R. at 12, ¶ 67. 1 The district court declined to reduce Mr. Marquez’s offense level by an additional level, and this appeal followed.
Discussion
1. The Motion to Suppress
Mr. Marquez challenges the denial of his motion to suppress on the ground that the district court erroneously concluded that (1) the search of the storage bench was within the scope of his consent, and (2) the search of the RV was based on probable cause. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, accept the district court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and review the ultimate determination of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment de novo.
United States v. Higgins,
When law enforcement officers rely upon consent to justify a warrantless search, the scope of the consent determines the permissible scope of the search.
Jimeno,
In arguing that the search of the compartment exceeded the scope of his consent, Mr. Marquez makеs much of the statement in
Jimeno
that although it would be reasonable to conclude that a general consent to search a vehicle includes consent to search a paper bag located therein, “[i]t is very likely unreasonable to think that a suspect, by consenting to
*1208
the search of his trunk, has agreed to the breaking open of a locked briefcase within the trunk.”
Id.
at 251-52,
Of course, the test for determining the scope of a suspect’s consent is not whether the suspect “would have wanted” an officer to search a container that contained contraband. If such were the test, we would be obliged to suppress the evidence in this and every other case involving a defendant who did not wish to be caught transporting narcotics. On the contrary, the proper inquiry is whether it would be objectively reasonable for a law enforcement officer to conclude that a suspect’s general consent to search extends to a particular container in a ear,
see Jimeno,
Moreover, the fact that the compartment here could be considered “more akin” to a locked briefcase than to a paper bag on the floor of a vehicle does not compel a holding that the search of the compartment here exceeded the scope of Mr. Marquez’s consent. Neither analogy is particularly apt. For one thing, the сompartment is unlike a locked briefcase in the sense that it constituted an integral part of the vehicle that was searched. This fact is significant in construing the scope of Mr. Marquez’s consent inasmuch as his consent pertained to the RV, which of course included the storage compartment at issue. Moreover, in upholding the search of the container in Jimeno, the Supreme Court found it significant that the officer had informed the suspect that he wanted to search the car for narcotics. In this regard, the Court stated that:
We think that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search respondents’ car included consent to search containers within that ear which might bear drugs. A reasonable person may be expected to know that narcotics are generally carried in some form of a container. Contraband goods rarely are strewn across the trunk or floor of a car. The authorization to search in this case, therefore, extended beyond the surfaces of the car’s interior....
Id.
(quotations and citations omitted). The same thing can be said about the search at issue here. The videotape of the search reveals that Mr. Marquez gave his consent to search after denying that he had either drugs or guns in the RV, and only after the officer specifically asked if he could search for guns or drugs. VI R. (videotape). Because narcotics could have been secreted in the storage compartment, we believe it was reasonable for the officer to conclude that the scope of Mr. Marquez’s consent extended to the search of that particular container.
See United States v. Ramstad,
In arguing that the search of the compartment exceeded the scope of his consent, Mr. Marquez also relies heavily on
United States v. Osage,
We are satisfied that it was objectively reasonable for the officer to conclude that the consent to search given by Mr. Marquez extended to the storage compartment at issue. Mr. Marquez consented to the search of the RV, the storage compartment was an integral рart of the RV, the compartment could have contained narcotics, and Mr. Marquez did not limit the scope of his consent. We are therefore presented with a situation not much different than the situation presented in several of our cases upholding an officer’s partial dismantling of an automobile pursuant to a general consent to search when the suspect did not object. -See
United States v. Pena,
2. The Third-Level Reduction Under U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b)
Mr. Marquez also argues that the district court erred in denying his request for an additional offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b). Mr. Marquez has the burden of establishing his entitlement to this additiоnal decrease in his offense level by a preponderance of the evidence.
United States v. Heredia-Cruz,
*1210 Under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), a defendant who “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense” is entitled to a two-level reduction in his offense level. Moreover, such a defendant may obtain an additional one-levеl reduction if:
[T]he defendant qualifies for a decrease under subsection (a), the offense level determined prior to the operation of subsection (a) is level. 16 or greater, and the defendant has assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of his own misconduct by taking one or more of the following steps:
(1) timely providing complete information to the government concerning his own involvement in the offense; or
(2) timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the court to allocate its resources efficiently....
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b).
At the sentencing hearing Mr. Marquez objected to the PSR’s failure to recommend ' a third-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b)(1) on the ground that he disclosed everything he knew about the offense to the authorities at the time of his arrest, and that he was entitled to a reduction under § 3E1.1(b)(2) because he timely notified the government of his intent to plead guilty. III R. Doc. 41 at 5-6. As to his request for a reduction under § 3E1.1(b)(2), the district court found that a reduction under that provision was not warranted because (1) Mr. Marquez entered his guilty plea “on the eve of trial,” and (2) he pleaded guilty only after a long suppression hearing that required the attendance of nearly all of the government’s witnesses. I R. Doc. 36 at 1. Likewise, the district court denied Mr. Marquez’s request for a reduction under § 3E1.1(b)(1), 3 holding that “defendant is not entitled to such additional reduction because he has not provided any information as to where or when he obtained the marijuana, and the names of the persons who were to receive the shipment.” Id. at 1-2.
We first address Mr. Marquez’s argument that he is entitled to an additional one-level reduction in his offense level under § 3E1.1(b)(1). Specifically, Mr. Marquez argues that he disclosed everything he knew about his involvement shortly after his arrest: the amount he .was paid to transport the drugs, the amount he was to receive upon successful delivery, and the fact that he was hired to drive the RV from California to Boston, Massachusetts. Aplt. Br. at 13. The district court, however, found that he failed to provide information regarding where he obtained the marijuana, how long it had been in his possession, and the names of the individuals who were to receive it. Under such circumstances, we cannot say that the dis *1211 trict court erred in holding that Mr. Marquez was not entitled to a reduction for providing complete information concerning his involvement in the offense.
We reach a different conclusion as to Mr. Marquez’s request for a reduction under § 3E1.1(b)(2). In determining whether the district court properly denied Mr. Marquez’s request for an additional reduction under this section, the determinative inquiry is whether Mr. Marquez’s notification of his intent to plead guilty was timely. The application notes to § 3E1.1 explain that the timeliness question is “context specific,” and that a defendant’s notification must generally “occur particularly early in the case” in order to be sufficient. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n. 6. However, § 3E1.1 and the accompanying application notes also make it clear that timeliness should be determined by reference to functional rather than “strictly temporal” terms.
United States v. Cunningham,
In its sentencing order denying Mr. Marquez’s objections to the PSR, the district court explained its decision as follows:
The Court finds that this objection should be denied. While defendant claims that he fully accepted responsibility for his offense, it is clear that his plea was entered on the eve of trial, and only after a lengthy suppression hearing which required the attendance of all but one of the government’s witnesses.
I R. Doc 36 at 1. Because we believe that under the circumstances of this case both reasons offered by the district court constitute impermissible grounds upon which to base a denial of the third level reduction under § 3E1.1(b)(2), we reverse.
First, we have little difficulty concluding that the district court erred in relying in part on the fact that Mr. Marquez entered a guilty plea only after a “lengthy súppression hearing” that just so happened to require the attendance of most of the government’s witnesses. Although the question of how the filing of a motion to suppress should affect the inquiry under § 3E1.1(b)(2) has yet to be addressed in this circuit, we agree with those circuits holding that a district court may not penalize a defendant for bringing a non-frivolous motion to suppress by denying a reduction under subsection (b)(2).
See, e.g.,, United States v. Kimple,
The government takes the position that “if the government establishes that it prepared for trial in conjunction with responding to pretrial motions, denial of the reduction may be justified,” even if “[the district court] cannot deny the reduction on the basis that the defendant exercised his constitutional rights at the pretrial stage of the proceedings.” Aplee. Br. at 17 (citing
Kimple,
We reach a similar conclusion regarding the district court’s reliance on the fact that Mr. Marquez’s plea “was entered on the eve of trial.” I R. Doc. 36 at 1. We begin by noting that the proper focus is on when Mr. Marquez
notified
the government of his intent to plead guilty, not on the date he actually entered his plea.
See
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b)(2);
United States v. Munoz,
As noted above, the determination of whether a defendant’s notification of his or her intent to plead guilty is “timely” cannot be made without regard to the context within which the notification was made. Where a defendant has filed a motion to suppress, the defendant cannot make an informed decision regarding whether he or she should plead guilty until it is known how the district court will respond to the motion. It is true that a defendant certainly has the ability to inform the government, in advance of a suppression hearing, of his or her intent to plead guilty in the event that the district court denies the motion. However, we do *1213 not believe such a conditional notification of intent should be required to preserve a defendant’s eligibility for a reduction under § 3E1.1(b)(2). A defendant who gives such a notification may undercut his own defense, as well as his ability to negotiate for and ultimately obtain a plea .agreement.
Given that the district court erred in relying on the factors discussed above, we next consider the proper remedy. We need not remand to the district court to determine Mr. Marquez’s eligibility for the reduction given the explicit considerations that bоth the district court and this court have given to the relevant factors. After thoroughly reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we are satisfied that under the facts of this case Mr. Marquez was entitled to the additional reduction under § 3E1.1(b)(2). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Mr. Marquez’s motion to suppress, REVERSE its denial of his request for an additional one-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b)(2), and remand with instructions to grant Mr. Marquez a one-level decrease in his offense level and resentence him accordingly.
Notes
. Mr. Marquez also objected to the PSR’s failure to make a determinatiоn of his eligibility to receive a sentence below the applicable statutory minimum sentence under the "safety valve” provision of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. IV R. at 13. At the sentencing hearing, the district court orally granted the safety valve reduction. III R. Doc. 41 at 10. Moreover, the judgment reflects that Mr. Marquez’s sentence took into account a reduction under § 5C1.2. I R. Doc. 28 at 2. However, in a sentencing order filed nearly one month after Mr. Marquez was sentenced, the district court stated that it was denying Mr. Marquez's request for "an additional one level reduction under the ‘safety valve’ provisions of USSG 5C1.2.” I R. Doc. 36 at 1. Notwithstanding the district court's reference to § 5C1.2, it is clear from the sentencing order that the district court did not intend to reverse its prior holding that the safety valve provision applied and that it mistakenly cited § 5Cl.2 in making its ruling. For that reason, and because an oral pronouncement of sentence from the bench controls over other written language,
see, e.g., United States v. Young,
. In light of this conclusion, we need not address the issue of whether the officer had probable cause to search the compartment.
. As noted above, instead of denying Mr. Marquez’s request for a one-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b)(1), the district court stated in its sentencing order that it was denying Mr. Marquez's request "under the 'safety valve’ provisions of USSG 5C1.2.” I R. Doc. 36 at 1. In making this statement, we are satisfied that the district court intended to deny Mr. Marquez’s claim that he was entitled to the third level reduction provided for in § 3E1.1(b)(1), but instead mistakenly cited § 5C1.2. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the district court’s reference to § 5C1.2 was made in the context of responding to what the district court characterized as Mr. Marquez' claim "that he is entitled to an additional one level reduction.” I R. Doc. 36 at 1 (emphasis added). Of course, it is § 3E1.1(b)(1) which entitles a defendant to "an additional one level reduction" based on the disclosure of information concerning the offense, not the "safety valve" provision of § 5C1.2, which operates to entitle a defendant to be sentenced below the applicable statutory minimum sentence and receive a two-level offense level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(6).
. Significantly, in its brief and at oral argument, the government never stated what, if anything, it did to prepare for trial beyond that which was required to prepare for the motion to suppress.