Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03841/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03841-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donna Peterson
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3841

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Donna Peterson, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 15, 2006

Filed: August 4, 2006

___________

Before BYE, LAY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

After Donna Peterson pled guilty to a two-count indictment, the government

filed motions for substantial assistance under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(e). The district court granted the motions and sentenced Peterson to

concurrent 68 month sentences, which represented a 50% downward departure from

the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range of 135 months’ imprisonment, and a 43%

reduction below the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months’

imprisonment. The government appeals. We remand for resentencing.

Appellate Case: 05-3841 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2006 Entry ID: 2074829
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

Peterson pled guilty to a two-count indictment. Count one charged Peterson

with conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine within one thousand

feet of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and

860(a), which carried a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months’

imprisonment. Count two charged Peterson with being an unlawful user in

possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2).

At sentencing, the district court adopted Peterson’s plea agreement admissions

and the unopposed presentence investigation report, and calculated an advisory

Guidelines sentencing range of 135 to 168 months. The government moved for a

downward departure for substantial assistance under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(e), and recommended a 20% downward departure from the advisory

Guidelines range. The government described Peterson’s assistance as that of a

“lower-level distributor,” whose “information was useful but was not the only

evidence to assist with the indictments of [co-conspirators].” The government

considered Peterson’s cooperation to be timely, and characterized the “truthfulness,

completeness, and reliability” of Peterson’s information and testimony as “okay.”

The government did not believe Peterson’s assistance posed any injury, danger, or

risk of injury to Peterson or her family. Peterson’s counsel asked the district court to

consider factors under section 3553(a), such as Peterson’s drug treatment, relative

sobriety, consistent work history, and family support, in determining Peterson’s

ultimate sentence.

The district court sustained the government’s motions, noted the government’s

recommendation, and mentioned several factors it would consider, including

Peterson’s drug addiction, depression, and employment history. The court went on

to consider factors under section 3553(a), including (1) the nature and circumstances

of the offenses; (2) Peterson’s personal history and characteristics, including use of

Paxil for depression; (3) the advisory Guidelines range; (4) the recommended

Appellate Case: 05-3841 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2006 Entry ID: 2074829
-3-

Guidelines range for one of Peterson’s yet-to-be sentenced co-conspirators; and

(5) Peterson’s post-offense rehabilitation. The court then stated:

There is a mandatory minimum of 120 months, and the Court’s

aware of that, and the 5K motion pertains to going down that far, and

then the 3553 allows the Court to go lower than that, and that’s what the

Court is contemplating at this time.

. . . .

The Court is now stating–this is not the sentence, but this is just

to allow the lawyers to have a chance to make a final objection, and the

Court is going to sentence the defendant to 68 months which is a 50

percent reduction.

The government objected to the downward departure, arguing the district court

impermissibly blended its consideration of the substantial assistance motions under

U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) with factors other than Peterson’s

assistance, namely those factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Peterson’s counsel

admitted Peterson withdrew her motion for a downward variance once the

government filed the motions for substantial assistance. Nevertheless, the district

court stated, “The Court is standing with what it said before. The Court feels that the

government is attempting to say that this is [an] unreasonable [sentence].” In

conclusion, the district court said:

The Court will grant the 5K1 motion by the government. The

Court will grant the 3553(e) motion by the government.

Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act, the Court is to impose a

sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with

sentencing purposes. In order to do so, the Court has fully considered

the aforementioned advisory guidelines and the factors set forth in 18

U.S. Code section 3553(a), sections (1) through (7), as well as the

defendant’s substantial assistance.

Appellate Case: 05-3841 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/04/2006 Entry ID: 2074829
-4-

The district court sentenced Peterson to concurrent 68 month sentences on counts one

and two, representing a 50% downward departure from the bottom of the advisory

Guidelines range of 135 months, and representing a 43% reduction below the 120

month statutory minimum sentence. The government appeals, arguing the district

court erred in (1) varying from the advisory Guidelines range before ruling on the

substantial assistance motions, and (2) considering factors under section 3553(a) in

determining Peterson’s substantial assistance. 

II. DISCUSSION

We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of the

Guidelines, we review for clear error the district court’s factual findings, and we

review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to depart from the

appropriate Guidelines range. United States v. Mashek, 406 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th

Cir. 2005).

When the government files a motion for substantial assistance pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, “the court may depart from the guidelines.” A motion by the

government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) provides the sentencing court with

further “authority to impose a sentence below a level established by statute as a

minimum sentence so as to reflect a defendant’s substantial assistance in the

investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense.” We

have held “[t]he extent of a departure or reduction pursuant to § 5K1.1 or § 3553(e)

can be based only on assistance-related considerations, and our review of a reduction

for substantial assistance typically centers on the non-exhaustive list of factors set

forth in § 5K1.1.” United States v. Saenz, 428 F.3d 1159, 1162 (8th Cir. 2005)

(listing the U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1(a) factors the court may consider, which include: (1) the

significance and usefulness of the defendant’s assistance; (2) the truthfulness,

completeness, and reliability of the defendant’s information and testimony; (3) the

nature and extent of the defendant’s assistance; (4) any injury, danger, or risk of

injury to the defendant or his family due to his assistance; and (5) the timeliness of

Appellate Case: 05-3841 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/04/2006 Entry ID: 2074829
-5-

the defendant’s assistance (citation and quotation omitted)); cf. United States v.

Pamperin, No. 05-3632, slip op. at 5 (8th Cir. Aug. 3, 2006) (noting, similarly, the

government’s decision to withhold substantial assistance motions may not be based

“on factors other than the substantial assistance provided by the defendant” (internal

quotation omitted)).

In Peterson’s case, the district court granted a 50% downward departure from

the Guidelines range (43% below the statutory minimum sentence). In doing so, the

district court discussed factors other than Peterson’s assistance. However, on the

record before us, we cannot determine (1) the weight the district court gave

permissible factors regarding Peterson’s assistance, (2) the district court’s position

regarding the government’s recommendation of a 20% downward departure, and

(3) for what purpose the district court considered factors other than Peterson’s

assistance, noting in particular, Peterson withdrew her motion for downward variance

when the government moved for substantial assistance. Given the nature of

Peterson’s assistance, it is uncertain whether a 50% reduction based solely on

Peterson’s assistance would be reasonable, although we state no opinion regarding

the reasonableness of such a reduction. See Mashek, 406 F.3d at 1017 (concluding

if the sentence imposed by the district court is “the result of an incorrect application

of the guidelines, we will remand for resentencing . . . without reaching the

reasonableness of the resulting sentence” (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(1)). Because

the district court did not specify its reasons for granting the motions for substantial

assistance, apart from other sentencing considerations, we must remand for

resentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) (stating the district court must specifically

state its reasons for varying from the Guidelines range); id. § 3742(f)(2) (requiring

appellate courts to remand for resentencing when the district court fails to provide

reasons for its sentencing variance or grants a departure based on an impermissible

factor).

Appellate Case: 05-3841 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/04/2006 Entry ID: 2074829
-6-

III. CONCLUSION

As directed by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(1), (2), we vacate Peterson’s sentence and

remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3841 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/04/2006 Entry ID: 2074829