for acceptance of responsibility. By way of negative inference, the two-level enhancement for ob struction of justice, § 3C1.1, may also be relevant. These provisions suggest that departures based on a defendant’s cooperation with authorities may warrant something on the order of a two-level adjustment for each factor found by the court to bear similarly on its evaluation of the defendant’s cooperation. They provide but imperfect guidance, however, since weighing the impact of any given factor on the quality of the defendant’s cooperation is an imprecise art, at best. We do not intend to preclude the district court from utilizing a scale with more gradations in order to assign greater or lesser weight to the factors it considers. 930 F.2d at 531; see also Winters, 117 F.3d at 349-50 (<HOLDING>). By granting points for each § 5Kl.l(a) factor
recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional recognizing thomas methodology but noting that it is not mandatory holding that it is not holding that the statute is mandatory holding that assumption of the defendants guilt is within the courts discretion but is not mandatory