Hamilton
United States v. Hamilton
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
The district court did not clearly err in refusing to reduce Hamilton’s offense level based upon her acceptance of responsibility. The district court explicitly found that Hamilton failed to display remorse and, to the contrary, attempted to blame others for her crimes throughout the trial. These findings are sufficient to support a denial of the requested downward adjustment notwithstanding the fact that Hamilton pled guilty with respect to some of the charges in the indictments. See James v. United States Parole Comm’n, 159 F.3d 1200, 1204 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1186 , 119 S.Ct. 1131 , 143 L.Ed.2d 124 (1999).
The district court did not violate Hamilton’s constitutional rights as articulated in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The sentences imposed by the district court did not exceed the statutory máximums with respect to any of the counts of conviction. Accordingly, the rights recognized in Apprendi are not implicated. See United States v. Hernandez-Guardado, 228 F.3d 1017, 1027 (9th Cir .2000).
Hamilton failed to raise before the district court the sentencing issues identified in her briefs with…