Preserving Acceptance of Responsibility Credit When Exercising Suppression Rights

Introduction

In United States v. Nunez, No. 22-50012 (5th Cir. Apr. 14, 2025), the Fifth Circuit addressed whether a defendant who challenges a search by motion to suppress—heard simultaneously with his bench trial—can still receive a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). The government’s evidence stemmed from a controlled buy of THC from Adrian Lewis Nunez’s minor stepson, a subsequent search of Nunez’s residence, and Nunez’s own post-Miranda admission that he possessed a shotgun. Convicted by judge alone of being a felon in possession, Nunez pleaded guilty only during trial, after evidence presentation began. The district court refused to award the reduction, deeming his plea untimely, and imposed an 84-month sentence. On appeal, he contended the denial was “without foundation” and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded. It held that by combining the suppression hearing with the trial, the district court foreclosed any opportunity for Nunez to enter a conditional plea (preserving his suppression challenge) and simultaneously remain eligible for the two-level acceptance-of-responsibility (AOR) reduction. Under this court’s precedents—most notably United States v. Washington and United States v. Najera—the exercise of a suppression right that does not contest factual elements of the offense cannot bar an AOR reduction. The court concluded the district court’s ruling “was without foundation,” so the sentence must be redetermined with proper consideration of § 3E1.1(a).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The panel grounded its decision in the Sentencing Guidelines and Fifth Circuit caselaw:

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a): authorizes a two-level decrease if a defendant “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility.”
Commentary to § 3E1.1: acknowledges that in “rare situations” a defendant may go to trial on non-factual issues (like suppression motions) and still demonstrate acceptance.
United States v. Washington, 340 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 2003): held that filing a suppression motion—challenging only the legality of the search—does not by itself preclude an AOR reduction.
United States v. Najera, 915 F.3d 997 (5th Cir. 2019): reaffirmed Washington and explained that a defendant who stipulates to factual elements yet preserves a suppression appeal deserves AOR credit.
United States v. Cordero, 465 F.3d 626 (5th Cir. 2006): contrasted Washington where a conditional plea was available but not taken, illustrating the importance of offering a plea conditional on preserving suppression rights.

Legal Reasoning

1. Factual vs. Legal Guilt: The court emphasized that Nunez did not dispute the elements of the offense (felony status, knowledge of that status, possession of an interstate firearm) except by challenging the search’s legality. His factual guilt was effectively admitted by stipulation and by his pre-trial admissions to police.

2. Conditional Plea and Eligibility: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2) permits a defendant, with court and government consent, to enter a “conditional plea”—reserving a pretrial motion for appeal while securing a timely plea. Because the district court combined the suppression hearing and trial, no adverse ruling could issue pretrial; thus Nunez had no opportunity to tender a conditional plea and preserve both his suppression claim and his AOR eligibility.

3. Denial “Without Foundation”: The government defended the denial on the grounds that Nunez pleaded guilty “too late.” But timeliness alone—when forced by the court’s procedural combination—cannot justify denying an otherwise meritorious AOR reduction. Absent a conditional plea option, requiring a defendant to choose between attacking a search and receiving the reduction would “chill” suppression motions and undermine Guideline policies.

Impact

This decision reinforces the principle that:

Suppression Hearings Must Not Be Conjoined with Trial to Deny AOR Credit: District courts cannot effectively block AOR reductions by carrying suppression motions into the trial date.
Defendants’ Rights to Challenge Searches Are Protected: litigants who admit factual elements but challenge only the legality of evidence remain eligible for Guidelines credit.
Sentencing Practice Adjusted: trial courts must provide fair opportunity for conditional pleas or otherwise preserve AOR eligibility when suppression motions are pending.
Future Appeals: defendants in similar post-trial-plea contexts may rely on United States v. Nunez to secure AOR reductions when their factual guilt is not truly contested.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Acceptance of Responsibility (AOR) Reduction: a downward adjustment in the offense level under the federal Sentencing Guidelines when a defendant clearly admits guilt and cooperates with the court and probation.
Conditional Plea: a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in which a defendant reserves the right to appeal a specific adverse pretrial ruling (e.g., denial of a suppression motion).
Motion to Suppress: a request to exclude evidence (and related statements) obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures).
Bench Trial: a trial conducted by a judge alone, without a jury, where the judge determines both law and fact.
Advisory Sentencing Guidelines: a system that recommends sentencing ranges based on offense severity and defendant characteristics, subject to judge’s discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Conclusion

United States v. Nunez establishes that defendants who challenge only the legality of evidence via suppression motions—and who admit the factual elements of their offenses—cannot be penalized by denial of the two-level acceptance of responsibility reduction when the court’s scheduling precludes a conditional plea. The Fifth Circuit’s remand directs the district court to reconsider the sentencing reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), preserving the balance between enforcing constitutional rights and encouraging defendants to accept responsibility. This precedent safeguards suppression motions from procedural manipulation and ensures fair application of the Sentencing Guidelines.