Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03829/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03829-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randy P. Green
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3829

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Randy P. Green, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 25, 2008

Filed: February 4, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Randy P. Green pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more

of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii),

and 846. The district court1

 sentenced him to the statutory mandatory minimum

sentence of 240 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release, see 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that (1) the district court erred in denying

Green’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing and in not compelling

Appellate Case: 06-3829 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2008 Entry ID: 3398514
2

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

-2-

the government to file a downward departure motion based on Green’s substantial

assistance; (2) the government abused its discretion in refusing to file the motion; and

(3) the sentence is unreasonable. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to compel

the government to file a downward-departure motion based on substantial assistance,

because no evidence was presented that the government acted with an unconstitutional

motive or irrationally when it elected not to file the motion. See United States v.

Mullins, 399 F.3d 888, 890 (8th Cir. 2005) (where plea agreement does not require

government to file substantial-assistance departure motion, district court may

intervene only if government’s refusal to make such motion was based on

unconstitutional motive, such as unlawful discrimination or other action not rationally

related to legitimate governmental interest); United States v. Hart, 397 F.3d 643, 646-

47 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). Nor did the court abuse its discretion in

denying Green’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B)

(defendant may withdraw plea if he can show fair and just reason for requesting

withdrawal); United States v. Kelly, 18 F.3d 612, 618-19 (8th Cir. 1994) (district court

did not abuse discretion in denying plea-withdrawal motion premised on

government’s refusal to move for substantial-assistance downward departure where

government did not breach plea agreement or unconstitutionally withhold motion). 

We also conclude that Green’s 240-month mandatory minimum prison sentence

is not unreasonable. See United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006)

(rejecting argument that district court had discretion to impose non-Guidelines

sentence when portion of sentence is result of mandatory minimum sentence;

“Booker2

 does not relate to statutorily-imposed sentences”); United States v. Chacon,

330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (only authority for district court to depart from

statutory minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only

Appellate Case: 06-3829 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2008 Entry ID: 3398514
-3-

when government makes motion for substantial assistance or defendant qualifies for

safety-valve relief).

Finally, after reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of

the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3829 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/04/2008 Entry ID: 3398514