Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31163/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31163-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denair Riley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31163

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DENAIR RILEY,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:11-CR-235-11

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Denair Riley pleaded guilty to conspiracy 

to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, 280 grams or more of 

cocaine base, and 500 grams or more of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and (B), and 846; and use of a communication 

facility (telephone) to facilitate that crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). 

The plea agreement contained, inter alia, a provision that, if Riley cooperated 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 7, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-31163 Document: 00513456412 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2016
No. 14-31163

2

and provided “substantial assistance”, the Government could, “in its 

discretion”, move for a sentence reduction. 

At sentencing, the Government declined to exercise that discretion, 

citing Riley’s lack of cooperation. The court sentenced him to the statutory 

mandatory minimum of 240 months’ imprisonment. In challenging that 

sentence, Riley does not contend his plea agreement was unknowing or 

involuntary. Instead, he asserts only that the Government breached the 

agreement by failing, based on his substantial assistance, to move for a 

downward departure. He acknowledges, however, that the Government 

retained discretion to move for such a departure.

A court cannot grant a downward departure for substantial assistance 

unless the Government so moves. E.g., United States v. Krumnow, 476 F.3d 

294, 297 (5th Cir. 2007). “The refusal to move for downward departure is 

reviewable only for unconstitutional motivation when [the Government’s] sole 

discretion is retained.” United States v. Aderholt, 87 F.3d 740, 743 (5th Cir. 

1996). Riley fails to claim an unconstitutional motivation, asserting only that 

his refusal to cooperate was because he feared for his safety. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-31163 Document: 00513456412 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2016