United States v. Motley
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26625, 388 U.S. App. D.C. 395, 587 F.3d 1153 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government's refusal to file a motion for a downward departure from a statutory mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) does not violate a defendant's due process rights, provided the refusal is rationally related to a legitimate government end, even if the government simultaneously files a motion for a departure from the Sentencing Guidelines under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 based on the defendant's substantial assistance.
Facts:
- Kevin Motley was arrested while selling 125 grams of cocaine base, having previously sold large quantities on four other occasions.
- A prior search of Motley's apartment had uncovered two pistols in his bedroom.
- Motley entered into a plea agreement with the government, pleading guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base.
- As part of the agreement, Motley agreed to cooperate fully with law enforcement authorities.
- The plea agreement explicitly reserved the government's sole discretion to file sentence reduction motions, stating it could file a motion to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines (§ 5K1.1) while declining to file one for a departure from the statutory mandatory minimum (§ 3553(e)).
- Motley provided assistance that the government acknowledged as 'substantial.'
- The government believed Motley was not fully forthcoming, suspecting he had more knowledge about local violence than he shared and questioning his truthfulness.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Kevin Motley on multiple drug and firearm charges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Motley entered into a plea agreement and pled guilty to a single-count criminal information.
- The government filed a sentencing motion requesting a downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines under § 5K1.1 but refused to file a motion for a departure below the statutory mandatory minimum under § 3553(e).
- The district court, finding it lacked authority to depart below the mandatory minimum without a government motion, sentenced Motley to 120 months' incarceration.
- Motley (appellant) appealed his sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing the government's (appellee's) refusal was unlawful.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government's refusal to file a motion to depart from a statutory mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), after having filed a motion to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, violate a defendant's due process rights if the refusal is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Garland, Circuit Judge
No. The government's refusal to file a § 3553(e) motion does not violate due process because it was rationally related to a legitimate government end. Citing Wade v. United States, the court explained that a defendant's substantial assistance is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the government to file a departure motion; the government retains the power, not the duty, to file such a motion. The government's decision is only reviewable for unconstitutional motives or irrationality. Here, the government rationally assessed the costs and benefits, concluding that while Motley's assistance warranted a significant reduction from his Guidelines range (262-327 months), his extensive criminal history and incomplete cooperation meant he did not deserve a further reduction below the 10-year statutory floor. The government has a legitimate interest in ensuring the sentence reflects the offense's seriousness and in incentivizing defendants to provide complete, not partial, cooperation.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the extensive discretion prosecutors hold in the plea-bargaining and sentencing process. It affirms that the government can differentiate between the value of cooperation for a Guidelines departure versus a more significant statutory mandatory minimum departure. The ruling establishes that prosecutors can use a 'tiered' reward system, granting a substantial benefit for cooperation while withholding the ultimate benefit if cooperation is deemed incomplete or the defendant's culpability remains high. This creates a high bar for defendants to challenge a prosecutor's refusal to file a § 3553(e) motion on due process grounds, requiring them to show not just that they helped, but that the government's refusal was arbitrary and lacked any rational basis.
