3E1.1, comment (n.5). It is well settled that a defendant who exercises his constitutional right to a trial does not automatically forfeit the benefit of the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. McKinney, 15 F.3d 849, 853 (9th Cir.1994). For example, a defendant who goes to trial in order to challenge the validity of the government’s theory may, in certain circumstances, still receive a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Ochoa-Gaytan, 265 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. McKittrick, 142 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir.1998). Even if he contests his guilt at trial, there are rare circumstances in which a defendant who manifests genuine contrition for his acts may merit an adjustment. See McKinney, 15 F.3d at 853 (<HOLDING>). This case, however, does not present a
holding that adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is appropriate where the district court rebuffed a defendants attempts to plead guilty holding that courts mention of a guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility to defense counsel was not reversible error holding defendant was not entitled to acceptance of responsibility despite his plea of guilty where he attempted to suborn perjury holding that there was no miscarriage of justice where the defendant claimed that the government abused its discretion by refusing to request a threelevel downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility holding that a defendant should not receive an acceptance of responsibility adjustment when there is contradicting obstructive conduct