in fact truthfully admit[] the conduct comprising the offenses of conviction” because he told the court in his motion to withdraw “that he answered yes to [its] questions [at the guilty plea hearing] because he was advised by his attorney to do so.” As the district court explained, “not only is the filing of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea in and of itself inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility, even beyond that Mr. Williams has in fact in his pro se pleadings denied that the answers he gave this court under oath were true....” For these reasons, we hold that the district court’s findings and denial of an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility were not clearly erroneous. Cf. United States v. Hall, 316 Fed.Appx. 287, 288-89 (4th Cir.2009) (unpublished) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>) (alteration in original). B. Next, Williams
holding that defendant was not entitled to reduction for acceptance of responsibility where he failed to fully account for the proceeds of his crime and attempted to delay a longscheduled hearing based on an incredible claim of innocence holding that where the defendant pleaded guilty subsequently denied his guilt and attempted to withdraw his plea and then attempted to minimize the significance of his statements at sentencing by averring that he accepted responsibility for the amount that me and the government have agreed to and offering a statement accepting responsibility  were insufficient to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility holding defendant failed to meet burden for acceptance of responsibility reduction where he objected in the psi but only made arguments at sentencing without offering evidence holding defendant was not entitled to acceptance of responsibility despite his plea of guilty where he attempted to suborn perjury holding that courts mention of a guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility to defense counsel was not reversible error