in denying the defendants a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under Sentencing Guidelines § 3E1.1 As discussed in Part II.A. above, the Supreme Court in Buford applied a deferential standard of review to a district court’s application of Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2 to the undisputed facts. Buford, 532 U.S. at 64-65, 121 S.Ct. 1276. The Court noted “the fact-bound nature of the legal decision, the comparatively greater expertise of the District Court, and the limited value of uniform court of appeals precedent....” Id. at 66, 121 S.Ct. 1276. Following the reasoning of Buford and of this court in Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d at 388-90, an unreported decision has applied the deferential standard of review to § 3E1.1. United States v. Miller, 45 Fed.Appx. 359, 364 (6th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). Section 3El.l’s commentary further supports
holding that it was clearly permissible for the district court to condition the reduction for acceptance of responsibility on the defendants willingness to provide information identifying the drug source holding that the courts conclusion that transfer was appropriate is to be accorded great deference holding that the district courts denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is a factual question and should be accorded great deference and should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous holding that denial of reduction for acceptance of responsibility was a penalty which could not be imposed for defendants assertion of fifth amendment privilege holding that trial courts determination of whether defendant accepted responsibility should not be disturbed unless it is without foundation