Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-15335/USCOURTS-ca11-15-15335-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mekael Daniels
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15335

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00269-TCB-AJB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MEKAEL DANIELS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 21, 2016)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 15-15335 Date Filed: 07/21/2016 Page: 1 of 5
2

Mekael Daniels appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motion to 

compel the government to file a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion 

for reduction of sentence based on substantial assistance.

Daniels pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 

100 grams of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Pursuant 

to a written plea agreement, he agreed to cooperate with the government. In return 

the government agreed to inform the district court of his cooperation. The plea 

agreement provided that if Daniels completed his cooperation before sentencing 

and the government determined that it amounted to “substantial assistance,” then it 

would recommend a downward departure at the sentence hearing. If Daniels 

completed his cooperation after sentencing and the government determined that it 

amounted to “substantial assistance,” then the government would file a Rule 35(b) 

motion for reduction of sentence. The plea agreement stated that in “either case, 

[Daniels] understands that the determination as to whether [he] has provided 

‘substantial assistance’ rests solely with the Government.”

The government determined that the cooperation Daniels provided before his 

sentencing amounted to “substantial assistance,” and accordingly filed a motion 

under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5K1.1 recommending a downward 

departure at his sentence hearing. During the hearing the government informed 

Daniels that it deemed his cooperation to be complete. It told him that if he wished 

USCA11 Case: 15-15335 Date Filed: 07/21/2016 Page: 2 of 5
3

to provide further information in the future in the hope of prompting the 

government to file a Rule 35(b) motion, then he should contact the United States 

Attorney’s Office to see if it was willing to consider his cooperation. The 

government made that point clear because of his “disconcerting” pattern of 

“get[ting] out of prison, commit[ting] another crime, [cooperating], get[ting] a 

reduction, get[ting] out of prison,” and committing another crime. The district 

court granted the government’s motion. The court entered judgment in August 

2012, and Daniels did not appeal.

Almost three years later, Daniels filed pro se in federal district court a 

motion titled “Defendant’s Motion to Compel Specific Performance 

and . . . Compel the Government to File a Rule 35(b) Motion for a Sentence 

Reduction.” He contended that the government violated the plea agreement by not 

filing a Rule 35(b) motion after he provided more cooperation post-sentencing. He 

asked the district court to order the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion for 

reduction of sentence based on that alleged cooperation. The court denied his 

motion and Daniels appealed.

We review de novo whether the district court can compel the government to 

file a substantial assistance motion. United States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492, 1498 

(11th Cir. 1993). The government has “a power, not a duty, to file a motion when 

a defendant has substantially assisted.” Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185, 

USCA11 Case: 15-15335 Date Filed: 07/21/2016 Page: 3 of 5
4

112 S. Ct. 1840, 1843 (1992); United States v. McNeese, 547 F.3d 1307, 1308–09 

(11th Cir. 2008). A defendant has no right to relief “unless he makes a substantial 

threshold showing” that the government’s refusal to file a substantial assistance 

motion was based on the breach of a plea agreement or an unconstitutional motive 

(such as the defendant’s race or religion). Wade, 504 U.S. at 185–86, 112 S. Ct. at 

1843–44 (quotation marks omitted); Forney, 9 F.3d at 1499–1502 & 1499 n.2; see 

also United States v. Gonsalves, 121 F.3d 1416, 1419 (11th Cir. 1997).

The government upheld its end of the plea agreement by filing a § 5K1.1

motion based on its determination that Daniels’ pre-sentencing cooperation 

amounted to substantial assistance. Although Daniels’ later cooperation may have 

allowed the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion, its failure to do so did not 

breach the plea agreement. The government had the sole power to determine 

whether Daniels’ cooperation qualified as “substantial assistance.” See Forney, 9 

F.3d at 1499 n.2 (“Because the plea agreement left sole discretion to the 

government to determine substantial assistance, the government’s decision not to 

file a [substantial assistance] motion was unavailable for judicial review . . . absent 

an allegation of constitutionally impermissible motive.”) (quotation marks 

omitted). Daniels alleged no facts indicating that the government acted with an 

unconstitutional motive when it refused to file a Rule 35(b) motion. Because he 

failed to make any showing (let alone a substantial one) that the government 

USCA11 Case: 15-15335 Date Filed: 07/21/2016 Page: 4 of 5
5

breached the plea agreement or acted with an unconstitutional motive, the district 

court properly denied his motion.1

AFFIRMED.

 

1 Daniels also appeals the denial of his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. “An 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is addressed to the sound discretion of the 

[district] court . . . .” Gomez v. United States, 245 F.2d 346, 347 (5th Cir. 1957). Because 

Daniels never filed a separate motion in this Court to permit an appeal in forma pauperis, we do 

not reach this claim. See id.

USCA11 Case: 15-15335 Date Filed: 07/21/2016 Page: 5 of 5