Does a plea of guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), based on a complete loss of memory of the actions underlying the offense of conviction, preclude an acceptance of responsibility reduction under the United States Sentencing Guidelines where the accused cannot concede the facts of the offense because he has no memory of those facts?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The United States Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two-level reduction in offense level where the accused accepts responsibility for his offense. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Petitioner, Mr. Raul Perez, entered a plea of guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), because, as determined by a magistrate judge and accepted by a district judge, due to an accident involved in the underlying offense, Mr. Perez simply could not remember his actions in the underlying offense. Nevertheless, Mr. Perez accepted the fact that he in fact committed the offense and demonstrated remorse. At sentencing, the district court denied Mr. Perez an acceptance of responsibility reduction based on his failure to concede the facts of the offense. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sentence holding that it was proper to deny acceptance based on Mr. Perez’s failure to concede facts he could not remember. Question Presented: Does a plea of guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), based on a complete loss of memory of the actions underlying the offense of conviction, preclude an acceptance of responsibility reduction under the United States Sentencing Guidelines where the accused cannot concede the facts of the offense because he has no memory of those facts? i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no