United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Willis Howard Pride, Defendant-appellant, 142 F.3d 447 (9th Cir. 1998)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Willis Howard Pride, a federal prisoner, appeals his sentence for five counts of bank robbery and one count of attempted bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Pride contends that the district court erred in denying him a three-level reduction for acceptance for responsibility. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error a district court's determination of acceptance of responsibility, see United States v.. Felix, 87 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.

Despite Pride's contention that he went to trial only to challenge the applicability of the statute to his conduct, the evidence shows that he was contesting an essential factual element: whether he took the money by intimidation." See 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a); United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("U.S.S.G.") § 3E1.1 comment. 2 (1995). By arguing that the prosecution did not present sufficient proof that the takings were by intimidation, Pride failed to establish that he clearly accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 comment. 2 (reduction not intended to apply where defendants contest essential factual elements); United States v. Sotelo, 109 F.3d 1446, 1449 (9th Cir. 1997) (defendant who contested one element was not entitled to reduction); cf. United States v. McKinney, 15 F.3d 849, 853-54 (9th Cir. 1994) (defendant who admitted committing a robbery, attempted to plead guilty several times before trial, and put on a minimal defense was entitled to a reduction). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by denying the reduction.

AFFIRMED.