Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04224/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04224-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Allen Landis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4224

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Christopher Allen Landis, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 16, 2007

Filed: February 23, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Allen Landis pled guilty to conspiring to distribute

methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (b)(1)(A), 846 (2000), and carrying a firearm

in relation to a drug offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2000). At sentencing,

the government moved for a reduction in sentence of twelve months based on Landis’s

substantial assistance. However, the district court1

 granted a twenty-five month

reduction and sentenced Landis to 156 months imprisonment. Landis appeals the

district court’s order denying his request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion to

Appellate Case: 05-4224 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281340
-2-

compel the government to move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

35(b), for an additional sentence reduction based on Landis’s substantial assistance.

We affirm. 

On July 19, 2002, Landis entered into a plea agreement, which provides in part

that:

The United States makes no representations or promises as to the

sentence to be imposed, as this is solely within the District Court’s

discretion. Although the parties may have discussed the possibilities of

various factors having an impact on the sentence and the possibility of

a certain sentencing range, the parties agree that no discussion resulted

in any express or implied promise or guarantee concerning the actual

sentence to be imposed.

The agreement further states that:

The decision to file a motion for departure will be in the sole discretion

of the United States Attorney. The Defendant understands that the

United States Attorney will decide whether the Defendant has performed

substantial assistance sufficient to warrant such a motion. A proffer

interview or a debriefing statement does not necessarily constitute

substantial assistance to the United States. The Defendant further

understands that if a motion is filed, the Court will decide whether the

Defendant has performed substantial assistance and, if so, the amount of

reduction in sentence that is to be granted.

At the sentencing hearing, attorney Michael Levy represented Landis.

Following his sentencing, Landis, believing that Levy continued to represent him,

communicated with Levy allegedly with regard to Landis’s assistance to the

government concerning an individual named Alberto Torres. Later, Landis learned

that Levy had represented Torres. However, Levy disputes that he represented Landis

and Torres concurrently. Levy further denies that he received information from

Landis regarding Torres while serving as Torres’ attorney. 

Appellate Case: 05-4224 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281340
-3-

 On appeal, Landis contends that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his

motion to compel the government to move for an additional sentence reduction based

on his substantial assistance. In order for Landis to obtain an evidentiary hearing, he

must make a substantial threshold showing that the government’s refusal to move for

an additional sentence reduction was irrational or based on an unconstitutional motive.

See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992); United States v. Mullins,

399 F.3d 888, 890 (8th Cir. 2005). Absent this showing, Landis “is not entitled to any

remedy or even an evidentiary hearing.” Mullins, 399 F.3d at 890 (quoting United

States v. Hardy, 325 F.3d 994, 996 (8th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted)). 

In an effort to show bad faith or irrationality on the government’s part, Landis

claims that, prior to entering into the plea agreement, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

(“ATF”) Special Agent Mickey Leadingham promised Landis that he would receive

a 50% reduction in sentence for his substantial assistance. However, the plea

agreement Landis subsequently executed is to the contrary. There, Landis

acknowledged that the government had made no promise to him regarding his

sentence. Further, although the plea agreement required the government to consider

the nature and value of any cooperation Landis provided, it did not obligate the

government to seek a reduction in sentence. Moreover, the agreement acknowledged

that, even where the government moved for a reduction in sentence, it could not

guarantee a specific sentence reduction because the sentencing court determines the

reduction amount. At sentencing, the district court asked Landis if it should consider

any additional information, and Landis’s statement to the court does not reference

Agent Leadingham or his alleged promise. Finally, the government did, in fact, move

for a sentence reduction based on Landis’s substantial assistance, and the district court

exceeded the reduction recommended by the government. 

Landis also contends that Agent Leadingham made post-sentencing

representations that information Landis provided both pre- and post-sentencing had

become “valuable,” resulting in three convictions in Nebraska. The government

Appellate Case: 05-4224 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281340
-4-

investigated this assertion, contacting numerous assistant United States attorneys in

the District of Nebraska, ATF agents, including Agent Leadingham, and at least one

state prosecutor. However, the government determined that Landis had not provided

substantial assistance warranting an additional motion for sentence reduction. 

Finally, Landis suggests that attorney Levy’s alleged conflict of interest

demonstrates Landis’s entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. However, Landis

provides no authority supporting this proposition, and we find none. To the extent

Landis contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, such a claim is

normally cognizable in a properly filed 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action. See United States

v. Davis, 452 F.3d 991, 994 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we decline to address the

merits of Landis’s ineffective-assistance claim in this appeal.

 We find that Landis’s allegations do not amount to a substantial threshold

showing that the government acted irrationally or in bad faith in determining not to

file an additional substantial assistance motion. Because Landis did not make the

requisite showing, the district court did not err in denying his request for an

evidentiary hearing. See Wade, 504 U.S. at 186; Mullins, 399 F.3d at 890. 

We affirm the district court’s judgment. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4224 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281340