OPINION

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Alan Mackety challenges his 300-month sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We conclude that the district court's blanket policy concerning the one-level point reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) affected the calculation of the Guidelines range and usurped the Government's discretion to move for a reduction under § 3E1.1(b), rendering Mackety's sentence procedurally unreasonable. Accordingly, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND for resentencing.

I.

Mackety was charged by a ten-count indictment with seven counts of sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C. § 2242(1),1 and three counts of abusive sexual contact, 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(2), involving his minor step-daughter. Mackety pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual abuse pursuant to a written plea agreement under which the Government agreed to dismiss the remaining seven counts of the indictment.

In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated to the following facts:

The Government agreed in the plea agreement not to oppose Mackety's request for a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a).

The Presentence report ("PSR") "reservedly recommend[ed]" that Mackety receive a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(a), calculated a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months, and recommended concurrent 235-month sentences for each of the three counts.

After Mackety filed his sentencing memorandum but before the Government filed its memorandum, the district court filed a Notice of Possible Sentencing Issues, advising that it would consider 1) "whether any credit for acceptance of responsibility is appropriate in this case," 2) "whether the nature and circumstances of the offense warrant an upward variance," and 3) "whether the apparently limited rehabilitative potential for [Mackety] warrants an upward variance."

Consistent with the PSR, the Government's sentencing memorandum requested that the court sentence Mackety at the high end of the Guidelines range—to 235 months if he received the two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The Government's sentencing memorandum stated that "the United States does not believe an upward variance in this case should be imposed."

The district court granted a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(a), departed upward by one criminal-history category under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, and also varied upward from the 188- to 235-month advisory Guidelines range, imposing a 300-month sentence.

II. PROCEDURAL UNREASONABLENESS

"[A]ppellate review of sentencing decisions is limited to determining whether they are `reasonable'." Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Courts of appeals must review all sentences, including those significantly outside the Guidelines range, under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 41, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Grossman, 513 F.3d 592, 595 (6th Cir.2008). Procedural errors include "failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. . ." Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. This court reviews the district court's legal interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Brooks, 628 F.3d 791, 796 (6th Cir.2011).

A.

Section 3E1.1 of the November 1, 2008 edition of the Guidelines provided:

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 & cmt. n. 6 (2008) (some emphasis added).

B.

Mackety challenges the denial of the additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(b) as procedurally unreasonable. Had Mackety received this reduction, the Guidelines range would have dropped from 188 to 235 months to 168 to 210 months (total offense level 35 and criminal-history category I).3 Mackety's claim is rooted in the district court's written policy, set forth in its April 28, 2009, Order Setting Final Pretrial and Trial dates:

Mackety argues that this policy usurps the discretion given to the Government by Congress and violates the fundamental policy favoring individualized consideration of each defendant. He argues that, under the circumstances of this case, he was deprived of a properly-calculated advisory Guidelines range because the Government interpreted the district court's policy as a categorical denial of a § 3E1.1(b) reduction for acceptance of responsibility and thus did not move for it.

We conclude that the district court's policy resulted in a failure to properly apply the Guidelines and thus resulted in procedural error.

C.

We reject the Government's argument that the district court's policy is consistent with controlling case law. In support, the Government cites only cases that preceded the 2003 amendment of § 3E1.1(b). The 2003 amendment specified that a § 3E1.1(b) reduction for acceptance of responsibility must be in response to a motion by the government. See, e.g., United States v. Deberry, 576 F.3d 708, 710 (7th Cir.2009) (noting that the 2003 amendment "turned subsection (b) into a license for prosecutorial discretion"). In the Government's cited cases, this court upheld denials of the § 3E1.1(b) reduction because the defendants waited to notify the government of their intent to plead guilty until days before trial or pleaded guilty on the eve of trial. United States v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174, 1184-85 (6th Cir.1994), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v. Caseslorente, 220 F.3d 727 (6th Cir.2000) (guilty plea entered five days before trial); United States v. Smith, 245 F.3d 538, 547 (6th Cir.2001) (defendant notified government of intent to plead guilty on evening before trial); United States v. Gonzalez, 7 Fed.Appx. 529, 530 (6th Cir.2001) (unpublished disposition) (defendant notified government he would plead guilty on morning of trial); United States v. McGruder, 168 F.3d 490 (6th Cir.1998) (table disposition) (guilty plea entered four days before trial); United States v. Thomas, 124 F.3d 201 (6th Cir.1997) (table disposition) (guilty plea entered on day of trial). Additionally, none of these cases involved a blanket order or policy. Rather, in each case, the decision not to grant the additional one-level reduction was based on the facts of the specific case.

We further reject the Government's argument that any error is harmless because the Government would not have moved for the § 3E1.1(b) reduction in any event. The record supports the argument that the district court's policy influenced the Government not to move for a § 3E1.1(b) reduction and, in doing so, usurped the Government's discretion to move for the § 3E1.1(b) reduction. At the May 26, 2009, change-of-plea hearing, the Government stated that it had not addressed the § 3E1.1(b) reduction in the Plea Agreement because of the district court's rule and that it would not oppose a third-level reduction.5 A similar understanding of the district court's policy also affected the Probation Officer's calculation of the advisory Guidelines range. Specifically, the PSR did not recommend a § 3E1.1(b) reduction because Mackety's plea was "untimely" under the district court's policy:

The PSR addendum addressed Mackety's objection to the PSR's failure to recommend the additional one-level reduction and reiterated that the district court's policy precluded it:

Finally, the Government's sentencing memorandum stated it would not move for an additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility because of the district court's policy and the plea agreement:

Thus, it was the understanding of the Government and Probation Officer that the policy language "may not receive" meant that a defendant is not permitted to receive the additional one-level reduction.

At sentencing, after discussion of the timing of defense counsel's nephew's death and the impact of her consequent absence on the timing of Mackety's guilty plea, the Government advised that it would not move for the § 3E1.1(b) reduction. Thereafter, the district court stated it was not granting the third-point reduction "Because I can't. It's not before me on a government motion." The court went on to explain that even if the Government had filed such a motion, it would not grant it.

The court's remarks at sentencing suggest that its policy was not mandatory, but it is clear that both the Government and the Probation Officer believed (at least up to the time of the sentencing hearing) that the policy was mandatory, i.e., that the district court would not grant any motion for an additional one-point reduction for any defendant who did not plead before the final pretrial conference. The Government is correct that it stated at sentencing that it would not move for the § 3E1.1(b) reduction, but its statement followed an extensive discussion regarding whether Mackety's plea was entered before the final pretrial conference—a condition the district court set forth in its standing order, which as implemented, contravenes § 3E1.1(b).

In sum, the Government's prerogative and discretion to move for the § 3E1.1(b) reduction was affected throughout the proceedings by the district court's policy, a policy that contravenes the Congressional finding expressly stated in § 3E1.1(b) that "the Government is in the best position to determine whether the defendant has assisted authorities in a manner that avoids preparing for trial." This Guidelines commentary was mandated by Congress in the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act ("PROTECT Act"). U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 & cmt. n. 6 (2008) (quoting § 401(g)(2)(B) of Public Law 108-21[ ]); United States v. Smith, 429 F.3d 620, 628 (6th Cir.2005) ("Congress made clear its purpose in amending § 3E1.1 (b) [a change effected by the PROTECT Act, effective April 30, 2003,] to require a government motion: The government is in the best position to know whether it has conserved resources.") Because the record supports that the district court's policy had the effect of usurping the Government's discretion in deciding whether to move for a third-point reduction and affected the calculation of the Guidelines range, we must remand for resentencing.

D.

At argument, counsel advised that the policy at issue here is commonplace in the Western District of Michigan, and often set forth in standing orders, although not in the Local Rules, www.miwd.uscourts. gov/rules_opinions.htm. A second Western District of Michigan judge has posted on that court's website a similar policy:

We take this opportunity to advise that such policies should be discontinued immediately because they are inconsistent with Congress' intent that the Government make the decision whether to move for the additional one-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b).

E.

Assuming, arguendo, that the district court had the authority to deny a § 3E1.1(b) motion,6 we agree with Mackety that the court's alternative ground for denying the reduction was not independently sufficient to warrant the denial. At sentencing, the district court stated that Mackety's delay in pleading guilty prompted the Government to file motions in preparation for trial. The Government indeed did file several motions, but, as Mackety argues, at the time of his plea, the Government stated that it would not oppose his receiving the § 3E1.1 (b) reduction and that it had not mentioned it in the plea agreement because of the district court's policy. When the Government so stated at the plea hearing, it had already expended the effort referred to by the district court. In sum, the district court's alternative rationale for denying the § 3E1.1(b) relied on grounds the Government apparently would not have raised itself and apparently did not believe warranted denial of the § 3E1.1(b) reduction.

F.

Given our disposition, we need not address Mackety's argument that the district court's upward departure in his criminal-history category rendered his sentence procedurally unreasonable because the court failed to provide him notice of a potential departure. Nor do we consider Mackety's substantive unreasonableness claims. United States v. Wilson, 614 F.3d 219, 226 (6th Cir.2010) (stating that "an appellate court is required to assess the substantive reasonableness of a sentence only if the sentence is procedurally sound") (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586).

For the reasons stated, we conclude that the district court's policy foreclosing a § 3E1.1(b) reduction for acceptance of responsibility clearly affected the calculation of the Guidelines range and usurped the Government's discretion, rendering Mackety's sentence procedurally unreasonable. We VACATE the sentence and REMAND for resentencing.