Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01677/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01677-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dominic William Lieder
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1677

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Dominic William Lieder, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 13, 2004

Filed: December 20, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Dominic Lieder was a member of a drug ring. He was arrested after

he sold methamphetamine to an undercover law enforcement officer. Lieder provided

substantial assistance to law enforcement both before and after pleading guilty to the

offense of aiding and abetting in distribution of methamphetamine. At the sentencing

hearing, the Government moved for a downward departure of Lieder’s sentence based

on his substantial assistance. See United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5K1.1.

Accordingly, the district court reduced Lieder’s sentence from the recommended

guideline range of 108-135 months to 57 months.

Appellate Case: 04-1677 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2004 Entry ID: 1846342 
-2-

Lieder now appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court abused its

discretion in failing to depart downward more than 57 months. It is well-settled that

a challenge to the sheer amount of a downward departure based on substantial

assistance is not cognizable on appeal. See United States v. Williams, 324 F.3d 1049,

1050 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. McCarthy, 97 F.3d 1562, 1576-77 (8th Cir.

1996). The only exception to this rule is when the district court refuses to depart

downward on the basis of bad faith or an unconstitutional motive. McCarthy, 97 F.3d

at 1578. Since Lieder does not allege this exception, his appeal is summarily denied.

Accordingly, we deny the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1677 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2004 Entry ID: 1846342