Hernandez

MEMORANDUM **

Hernandez first argues that the district court erred when it concluded that it did not have discretion to grant a 1-level departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. This provision does not contemplate or authorize such a departure. Because Hernandez was not qualified for a departure under § 3B1.2, the district court was also without discretion to consider his request for a departure pursuant to § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n. 14.

Hernandez also claims that he is entitled to a departure under § 3E1.1, which requires a defendant to “clearly demonstrate[ ] acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” Only in “rare situations [will] a defendant ... clearly demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility for his criminal conduct even though he exercises his constitutional right to a trial.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n. 2. Hernandez’s inculpato-ry statements evince no contrition or remorse for his actions. See United States v. Connelly, 156 F.3d 978, 982 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that “a failure to demonstrate contrition and remorse weighs against a finding of acceptance of responsibility”). Considering that “the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review,”…