Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01700/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01700-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maria DeLourdes Andrade-Mora
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1700

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Maria Delourdes Andrade-Mora, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 30, 2004

Filed: January 18, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Maria Delourdes Andrade-Mora was found guilty after a jury trial of conspiring

to distribute, and possessing with intent to distribute, methamphetamine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. The government appeals the

sentence, which reflected a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12 (coercion

and duress). Andrade-Mora argues that the government did not preserve its objection

to the departure. We reverse and remand.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we find that the government preserved

its objection to a sentence below the mandatory minimum. Reviewing de novo the

Appellate Case: 04-1700 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2005 Entry ID: 1855945 
-2-

district court’s decision to depart, see United States v. McCart, 377 F.3d 874, 876-77

(8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review), we find that the court exceeded its authority,

because the government did not file a substantial-assistance motion, see 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(e), and the court did not find that Andrade-Mora qualified for safety-valve

relief, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Cf. United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066

(8th Cir. 2003) (“district court was correct that it could not use § 5K2.0 to depart

below the statutory minimum because ‘the only authority for the district court to

depart below the statutorily mandated minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C.

§§ 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when the government makes a motion for

substantial assistance or when the defendant qualifies under the safety valve

provision’” (quoted case omitted)). Accordingly, we vacate Andrade-Mora’s

sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1700 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2005 Entry ID: 1855945