ORLOFSKY, District Judge:
On May 24, 1996, Defendant, Jose A. Valdez, pled guilty to a one count indictment charging that on December 17, 1994, while lawfully confined as a federal prisoner at the satellite camp housing of Fairton Federal Correctional Institution ("FPC-Fairton"), by virtue of a judgment and commitment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, he knowingly and wilfully escaped from FPC-Fairton satellite camp housing, in violation of 18 U.S.C § 751(a)(1). According to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the Base Offense Level for this offense is 13. See U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(a)
The issues before this Court concern whether Defendant is entitled to a downward offense level adjustment pursuant to either section 2P1.1(b)(3),
or section 3E1.1
of the Sentencing Guidelines. Offense level adjustment under section 2P1.1(b)(3) requires the Court to determine whether FPC-Fairton, the facility from which the Defendant escaped, is a facility "similar to" a community corrections center. In contrast, offense level adjustment under section 3E1.1 requires the Court to decide whether the Defendant clearly demonstrated acceptance of responsibility for his offense. For the reasons which follow, I find that the Defendant is not entitled to a downward offense level adjustment under either provision of the Sentencing Guidelines.
A. Downward Departure Pursuant to Section 2P1.1(b)(3)
The Defendant contends that the downward offense level adjustment of U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(3) should apply to reduce his offense level by four levels. In contrast, the United States asserts that the downward offense level adjustment of U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(3) does not apply. Section 2P1.1(b)(3) instructs that "if the defendant escaped from the non-secure custody of a community correct ions center, community treatment center, 'halfway house,' or similar facility. . . decrease the offense level under subsection (a)(1) by 4 levels." U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(3).
Accordingly, whether the Defendant is entitled to such an offense level reduction in this case depends upon whether, prior to his escape, he was in the "non-secure custody of a community corrections center, community treatment center, 'halfway house,' or similar facility." See U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(3).
Whether FPC-Fairton is such a "facility" within the meaning of Section 2P1.1(b)(3) has not yet been addressed in this Circuit. In United States v. Hillstrom, 988 F.2d 448 (3d Cir. 1993), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a district court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to ascertain whether a correctional facility from which a defendant has escaped is "similar to" a community corrections center ("CCC") for purposes of offense level reduction under Section 2P1.1(b)(3). On remand, the District Court in Hillstrom noted that the comparison between a community corrections center and the facility from which a defendant escaped is to be made on a case-by-case basis. United States v. Hillstrom, 837 F. Supp. 1324, 1329 (M.D. Pa. 1993), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1490 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 131 L. Ed. 2d 236, 115 S. Ct. 1382 (1995). Among the factors to be considered are:
whether the purpose of placement is primarily punitive or primarily rehabilitative; inmate employment; provision of meals, religious services and facilities, recreation, etc., on-site or off-site; provision of medical and dental services on-site or off-site, and payment for such services; authorization of staff to prevent escape; use of force and/or firearms by staff; whether the Bureau of Prisons operates the facility; ratio of inmates to staff; and reasons for which inmates may leave the grounds.