Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06342/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06342-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Wade Brown
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

FILED Uoit~ States Court of Appeals 

Tench Circu it 

gUG 2 3 '1990 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff/Appellee, 

v. 

ANTHONY WADE BROWN, 

Defendant/Appellant. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

No. 89-6342 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

·for the 'Western -District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. No. CR-89-103A) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Joseph L. Wells, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Timothy D. Leonard, United States Attorney, and D. Blair Watson, 

Assistant u.s. Attorney, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for PlaintiffAppellee. 

Before McKAY and SETH, Circuit Judges, and KANE, 1 District Judge. 

McKAY, Circuit Judge. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

1 Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., United States District Judge for 

the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-6342 Document: 01019381709 Date Filed: 08/29/1990 Page: 1 
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

I. FACTS 

Defendant Anthony Wade Brown entered a plea of guilty to the 

charge of conspiracy to distribute heroin in violation of 21 

u.s.c. § 846 (1988). In compliance with the plea agreement, the 

government submitted a confidential memorandum to the district 

court which indicated that Mr. Brown supplied information that 

assisted the government in indicting additional wholesale suppliers of heroin and cocaine. Mr. Brown argued below that this 

confidential memorandum was the "functional equivalent" of a government motion to depart under 18 u.s.c. § 3553(e) (1988) and 

§ 5K1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, 

Mr. Brown challenges the district court's denial of his motion to 

impose sentence below statutory minimum. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Although defendant stylized his motion as one to impose sentence below the statutory minimum, under the present sentencing 

structure, we interpret this motion as one to impose sentence 

below the Sentencing Guidelines. Such an approach is consistent 

with the citations and arguments of both parties. Mr. Brown 

argues that the government's confidential memorandum containing 

information concerning his substantial assistance is the "functional equivalent" of a government motion to depart. See United 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6342 Document: 01019381709 Date Filed: 08/29/1990 Page: 2 
States v. Justice, 877 F.2d 664, 668-69 (8th Cir. 1989); United 

States v. White, 869 F.2d 822, 828-29 (5th Cir. 1989). We have 

already decided that a trial court's authority to grant a § SKl.l 

reduction requires an actual motion by the prosecution and that 

even "a stipulation in the Memorandum of Understanding that 

defendant was entitled to a reduction of two offense levels for 

acceptance of responsibility" was not the functional equivalent of 

a motion. United States v. Kuntz, No. 89-2182, slip op. at 3-6 

(lOth Cir. July 16, 1990). In Kuntz we recognized that the applicable sections2 expressly "condition the district court's consideration of defendant's substantial assistance claim upon a prior 

motion of the government." Id. at 4. We believe our holding in 

Kuntz fully rejects the "functional equivalent" doctrine urged by 

defendant. Cf. United States v. Musser, 856 F.2d 1484, 1486-87 

(11th Cir. 1988). 

AFFIRMED. 

2 Section SKl.l provides that "[u]pon motion of the government 

stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in 

the investigation or prosecution of another person who has 

committed an offense, the court may depart from the guidelines." 

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § SKl.l 

(Nov. 1989). That guideline implements 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), which 

provides that "[u]pon motion of the Government, the court shall 

have the authority to impose a sentence below a level established 

by statute as minimum sentence so as to reflect a defendant's 

substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of 

another person who has committed an offense." 18 u.s.c. § 3553(e) 

(1988). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6342 Document: 01019381709 Date Filed: 08/29/1990 Page: 3