Whether the government must meet a heightened standard of proof before claiming a defendant has 'falsely denied' uncharged 'relevant conduct' for purposes of denying acceptance of responsibility credit

QUESTION PRESENTED A defendant who pleads guilty will face a presentence investigation report, the results of which will guide the District Court in affixing sentence. A routine part of these examinations is to provide the district court will all “relevant conduct” of the defendant. But what must a defendant do when the Government alleges, as a part of that relevant conduct, a crime that the defendant has not been committed? Because the Fifth Circuit did not analyze the appropriate standard of proof the Government must meet before it may claim that a defendant is “falsely denying” uncharged “relevant conduct,” Mr. Placancia-Rosendo faced an improper denial of his acceptance of responsibility points, and this Court should act to prevent an illegal sentence based on a denial of due process. I