UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 93-3736
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CURTIS JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
CONSOLIDATED WITH
No. 93-3740
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DARRYL SHELTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(September 13, 1994)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
POLITZ, Chief Judge:
Convicted on guilty pleas of conspiracy to distribute cocaine
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, Curtis Johnson and
Darryl Shelton appeal their sentences. Concluding that the
downward departure provision of the Sentencing Guidelines may have
been incorrectly applied, we vacate the sentences and remand.
Background
Johnson, Shelton, and Amos Conde attempted to purchase five
kilograms of cocaine from an undercover DEA agent. After they
viewed the cocaine and showed the DEA agent their money, the men
were arrested. Curtis, Shelton, and Conde were indicted for
conspiracy to distribute cocaine and attempted possession with the
intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)
and 846. They pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count and the
possession count was dismissed.
Prior to sentencing the government filed section 5K1.1 motions
requesting downward departure in the sentencing of Johnson and
Shelton based on their assistance to the government. Johnson and
Shelton asked for greater departures than the 10 months suggested
by the government. The district court accepted the government's
recommendations and sentenced Johnson to 60 months imprisonment and
Shelton to 77 months imprisonment. Both timely appealed and their
appeals were consolidated.
Analysis
Johnson and Shelton received downward departures in their
sentences pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, which provides:
Upon motion of the government stating that the defendant
has provided substantial assistance in the investigation
or prosecution of another person who has committed an
offense, the court may depart from the guidelines.
(a) The appropriate reduction shall be determined by
the court for reasons stated that may include, but
are not limited to, consideration of the following:
(1) the court's evaluation of the significance and
usefulness of the defendant's assistance,
taking into consideration the government's
evaluation of the assistance rendered;
(2) the truthfulness, completeness, and
reliability of any information or testimony
provided by the defendant;
(3) the nature and extent of the defendant's
assistance;
(4) any injury suffered, or any danger or risk of
injury to the defendant or his family
resulting from his assistance;
(5) the timeliness of the defendant's assistance.
When the government files a section 5K1.1 motion, the sentencing
court may depart below the guideline range if it finds that
substantial assistance was rendered to the government. The
propriety and extent of the departure must be determined by the
court, based on its evaluation of the facts and circumstances of
the case.1 The government's evaluation and recommendation, while
deserving substantial weight,2 is but one factor to be considered
in this equation.3 As the commentary to section 5K1.1 explains,
1
United States v. Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150 (1st Cir. 1993);
United States v. Francois, 889 F.2d 1341 (4th Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, 110 S.Ct. 1822 (1990).
2
U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, comment. (n.3).
3
See Mariano; United States v. Keene, 933 F.2d 711 (9th Cir.
1991); see also United States v. Stowe, 989 F.2d 261 (7th Cir.
3
"[t]he nature, extent, and significance of assistance can involve
a broad spectrum of conduct that must be evaluated by the court on
an individual basis."4 Thus, when ruling on a section 5K1.1
motion, the sentencing court must exercise its independent judgment
and discretion first to determine whether departure is warranted
and, finding such, the extent of that departure.5 In doing so the
court is free to deny departure or to grant a departure which is
greater or smaller than that recommended by the government.6
Johnson and Shelton contend that the district court abdicated
its duty to conduct an independent inquiry into their cases to
determine the appropriate departure. They claim that the court,
based on a self-imposed policy, apparently felt compelled to adopt
automatically the recommendations of the government. Johnson and
Shelton underscore the court's response to their pleas for a
greater departure. The court explained that although "technically
speaking, [it could] do it . . . [it had] the power," "[its] policy
is, [it doesn't] do it." When counsel suggested that "just taking
the government's recommendation is not acting independently," the
1993).
4
U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, comment.
5
Mariano; United States v. Spiropoulos, 976 F.2d 155 (3d Cir.
1992); United States v. Udo, 963 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1992); United
States v. Munoz, 946 F.2d 729 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v.
Richardson, 939 F.2d 135 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 599
(1991), and cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 942 (1992); Keene; United
States v. Damer, 910 F.2d 1239 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct.
535 (1990); United States v. Castellanos, 904 F.2d 1490 (11th Cir.
1990); United States v. Pippin, 903 F.2d 1478 (11th Cir. 1990).
6
Spiropoulos; Udo; United States v. Cheng Ah-Kai, 951 F.2d 490
(3d Cir. 1990); Keene; Damer; Pippin.
4
court responded that "[it's] not acting independently. . . . [T]he
government is in the best position" to know what downward departure
is appropriate. Johnson and Shelton contend that these comments
clearly demonstrate that, as a matter of policy, the court has
bound itself to accept the recommendation of the government on
matters of downward departure. They urge that such a policy
constitutes an inappropriate abdication of the court's
responsibility, effectively placing same in the hands of the
prosecutor.7
It is not clear from the record whether the district court
felt compelled, as appellants suggest, to deny a departure greater
than that recommended by the government. Although the court
referred to its power and discretion in determining whether and to
what extent to depart, the record leaves open the question whether
the court also adequately recognized its duty to evaluate
independently each defendant's case before making the section 5K1.1
determinations. The mere verbal acknowledgment of the power to
deny the government's motion, or to deviate from its
recommendation, does not suffice to acquit the court's
responsibilities. The court is charged with conducting a judicial
inquiry into each individual case before independently determining
7
See Cheng Ah-Kai and Keene (while prosecutor is in best
position to know whether defendant's cooperation was helpful,
extent of assistance and its impact on the sentence are matters
left to sentencing judge); see also United States v. Hartford, 489
F.2d 652 (5th Cir. 1974) (pre-guidelines case) (court policy of
imposing maximum penalty in all narcotics offenses held improper
abdication of duty to consider each defendant's case individually
based on all relevant facts).
5
the propriety and extent of any departure in the imposition of
sentence.8 While giving appropriate weight to the government's
assessment and recommendation, the court must consider all other
factors relevant to this inquiry.9 Because of the uncertainty of
the factors considered by the court a` quo, and to ensure the
appropriate disposition of these matters, we VACATE the sentences
of Johnson and Shelton and REMAND for resentencing consistent
herewith.10
8
See U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, comment.; see also Mariano; Keene;
Castellanos.
9
See Mariano; Keene; Castellanos.
10
Although the government argues that the defendants failed to
adduce evidence relevant to their cooperation and warranting
further departure, we do not reach this issue. The district court
did not articulate the basis for its refusal to depart from the
guideline computation by more than 10 months. It is not for us to
say, in the first instance, whether the defendants' proffered
reasons justify a greater reduction in their sentences. That is
first for the sentencing judge.
6