Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06288/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06288-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lavada Long
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

PUBLISH United States Court cf Appeals 

Tf'ntlo. ~irC'•lit. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS .. \)N 1 7 1991 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

-" ~ol)nPTI .u.LJ_v J, •. HOE,.,K~R v .1.:.-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. No. 90-6288 

LAVADA LONG I 

Defendant-Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CR-90-117-A) 

Clerk 

Robert E. Mydans, Assistant United States Attorney (Timothy D. 

Leonard, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Susan M. Otto, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Before BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and FINESILVER, 

District Judge.* 

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge 

Defendant-appellant Lavada Long pled guilty to one count of 

using a communication facility in furtherance of the distribution 

of a controlled substance, 21 u.s.c. § 843(b). Because the 

* The Honorable Sherman G. Finesilver, Chief United States 

District Judge for the District of Colorado, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-6288 Document: 01019297971 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 1 
offense occurred after November 1, 1987, the Sentencing Guidelines 

applied. The court sentenced defendant to the minimum guideline 

range sentence of twenty-one months imprisonment. Defendant 

appeals the sentence, contending that the court misapplied the 

guidelines. See 18 u.s.c. § 3742 (a)(2). We affirm. 

On April 6, 1988, defendant and the government entered a plea 

agreement whereby defendant agreed to cooperate with the 

government. In return, the government agreed to provide the 

sentencing court a confidential memorandum detailing the extent 

and value of defendant's cooperation. Defendant fulfilled her 

agreement, rendering testimony in another case. The government 

also complied, providing a confidential memorandum to the court; 

however, the government did not move for a downward departure from 

the minimum guideline sentence as allowed by§ 5Kl.l of the 

Sentencing Guidelines. See United States Sentencing Commission, 

Guidelines Manual, § 5Kl.l (Nov. 1, 1990). The district court 

based its sentencing decision on a determination that it lacked 

jurisdiction to depart downward without a government motion. 

Defendant contends that this was a misapplication of the 

guidelines and therefore is subject to de nQYQ review. See United 

States v. Lowden, 905 F.2d 1448 (lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 111 s. 

Ct. 206 (1990). 

Section 5Kl.l allows for a downward departure "[u]pon 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 .... " We have 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6288 Document: 01019297971 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 2 
. ' 

repeatedly held that a government motion is a jurisdictional 

prerequisite to a§ 5Kl.l downward departure from the guidelines. 

See, ~' United States v. Vargas, 925 F.2d 1260 (lOth Cir. 

1991); United States v. Snell, 922 F.2d 588 (lOth Cir. 1990); 

United States v. Deases, 918 F.2d 118 (lOth Cir. 1990); United 

States v. Sorenson, 915 F.2d 599 (lOth Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 

111 S. Ct. 1002 (1991); United States v. Brown, 912 F.2d 453 (lOth 

Cir. 1990); United States v. Kuntz, 908 F.2d 655 (lOth Cir. 1990); 

United States v. Davis, 900 F.2d 1524 (lOth Cir.), cert. denied, 

111 S. Ct. 155 (1990). See also United States v. Doe, No. 

90-3027, slip op. (D.C. Cir. May 24, 1991). 

Defendant contends, however, that the above cases are 

distinguishable because they dealt with departures from 

statutorily required minimum sentences rather than guideline 

minimums. In the case of a guideline minimum sentence, defendant 

contends that § 5Kl.l is not a jurisdictional limitation because 

it is a mere policy statement as opposed to a guideline. We must 

reject this argument, having "already decided that a trial court's 

authority to grant a § 5Kl.l reduction requires an actual motion 

by the prosecution II Brown, 912 F.2d at 454 (case dealt 

with a reduction from a guideline minimum rather than a statutory 

minimum) (citing Kuntz, 908 F.2d at 656-58). The law of the 

circuit is settled on this issue. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6288 Document: 01019297971 Date Filed: 06/17/1991 Page: 3