Case ID: f-appx_569/html/0226-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bobby Dan TEETS, also known as Bull, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-20461
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 27, 2014.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Patrick F. McCann, Law Offices of Patrick F. McCann, Houston, TX, for Defendant>-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Bobby Dan Teets appeals the denial of the Government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion for a sentence reduction based on his substantial assistance. We pretermit the question of whether the appeal waiver bars the instant appeal because Teets’s challenge to the district court’s ruling fails. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir.2006).

Teets contends that the district court denied the Government’s motion pursuant to Rule 35(b)(2)(B) or (C) and argues that the district court erred by requiring the Government to prove or allege when the information he provided became useful. Teets’s argument rests on a faulty premise. The Government filed the motion within one year of the oral pronouncement of sentence. Therefore, the only applicable provision of Rule 35(b) was subsection (1). See Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b)(1).

The Government’s U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and Rule 35(b) motions relied on the same substantial assistance. The district court had already taken this substantial assistance into account when it granted the Government’s § 5K1.1 motion. Thus, the district court appropriately required the Government to show that Teets had offered additional substantial assistance to warrant a further sentence reduction. The Government failed to do so.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.