that “post-offense rehabilitative efforts (e.g., counseling or drug treatment)” are appropriate considerations supporting a finding of acceptance of responsibility. § 3E1.1, cmt. n. 1(g). Ms. Lozano underscores her efforts at rehabilitation during the period of her pretrial- incarceration, which the district court also noted. In response, the government argues-that Ms. Lozano would not receive a lower sentence on remand. First, it argues that the adjustment is not meant to benefit a “defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt.” USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 2. The government avers that this court has sparingly approved the two-level adjustment exception to a defendant who proceeds to trial, citing Herron, 432 F.3d at 1139 (<HOLDING>). The government also invokes United States v.
holding abuse of discretion is established if district court decision was based on an error of law holding that the district court had the discretion to grant a downward departure for postsentence rehabilitation recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard holding that the district courts denial of a downward departure was an exercise of discretion and therefore not reviewable holding we would find an abuse of discretion if the district court had granted the downward adjustment