Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03190/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03190-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guy Marshall Tarrents
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3190

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Guy Marshall Tarrents, * District of Minnesota.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

___________

Submitted: May 5, 2004

Filed: May 10, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Following sentencing upon his conditional guilty plea to bank robbery, Guy

Marshall Tarrents challenges the district court’s1

 denial of both his motion to suppress

and his motion for a downward departure based on his diminished mental capacity.

Appellate Case: 03-3190 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2004 Entry ID: 1765228 
-2-

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court properly

denied Tarrents’s motion to suppress. See United States v. James, 353 F.3d 606, 612

(8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review). Tarrents’s van matched the description of the

getaway van a state trooper had received from the dispatcher; the trooper observed

Tarrents’s van a few miles from the bank less than thirty minutes after the robbery;

and Tarrents attempted to flee after being ordered by a deputy sheriff to exit the van.

See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968); United States v. Jackson, 175 F.3d 600,

601-02 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (defendant’s attempt to flee police is factor in

creating reasonable suspicion); United States v. Juvenile TK, 134 F.3d 899, 901-04

(8th Cir. 1998) (upholding Terry stop where officers had stopped gray vehicle they

saw less than 2 blocks from scene of robbery and within 5 minutes after receiving

dispatch that robber had fled in “gray vehicle”).

As to Tarrents’s departure motion, the district court's comments that "the facts

of this case do not meet the standards for a departure" indicate that the court believed

it had authority to depart downward under USSG § 5K2.13, but declined to do so.

United States v. Bieri, 21 F.3d 811, 817-18 (8th Cir. 1994) (district court’s statement

that it had no authority to depart “under the facts of this case” indicated exercise of

discretion not to depart). Where the district court assumes that it has authority to

depart, its discretionary decision not to depart is unreviewable. See United States v.

Goodson, 165 F.3d 610, 615 (8th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3190 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2004 Entry ID: 1765228