Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03376/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03376-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arthur R. Pilant
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United S~tes Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ARTHUR R. PILANT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

AUG 191992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER ·Clerk 

No. 91-3376 

(D.C. No. 90-10084-01) 

(Dist. of Kansas) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist the determination of this appeal. ~ Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Arthur Pilant appeals from a sentence imposed following his 

plea of guilty to one count of use of a telephone in an attempted 

manufacture of methamphetamine, violative of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). 

Through an ongoing investigation, Drug Enforcement Agency 

agents became aware that Pilant had purchased a large amount of 

chemicals commonly associated with the manufacture of 

* This Order and Judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-3376 Document: 010110285778 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 1
methamphetamine. Thereafter, a search warrant was issued for 

Pilant's residence where agents discovered glass bottles 

containing 72.4 grams of phenyl-2-propanone (P2P), a precursor for 

methamphetamine. 

Although Pilant initially told the agents that the chemicals 

were used to make a coating mixture for urethane, he later 

acknowledged that he was purchasing the chemicals for Mark Brinson 

and William Baresch for the manufacture of methamphetamine. 

Pilant subsequently agreed to cooperate with the government. 

Through his assistance, Brinson, Baresch, and one Keith Stierman 

were arrested. All three pled guilty to interstate racketeering 

and were sentenced to five years imprisonment. 

Pilant was charged in a two-count indictment with attempt 

to manufacture and conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. 

Because of Pilant's cooperation, the government entered into a 

plea agreement whereby Pilant was allowed to plead guilty to one 

count of illegal use of a communication device in violation of§ 

843(b). The government, however, refused to file a motion under 

United States Sentencing Guidelines, § SKl.l requesting that the 

court depart downward based on Pilant's substantial assistance. 

Pilant was sentenced to twenty-four months imprisonment and one 

year supervised release . 

On appeal, Pilant contends that: the government's refusal to 

file a motion for downward departure based on his substantial 

assistance was so egregious as to justify corrective action; the 

requirement that the government file a motion in order for the 

district court to consider a downward departure based on 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3376 Document: 010110285778 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 2
substantial assistance violates due process; and the case should 

be remanded for correction of a clerical error in the judgment and 

commitment order. 

I. 

Pilant contends the government's refusal to file a motion for 

downward departure based on his substantial assistance was so 

egregious as to justify corrective action. Under§ 5Kl.1, the 

court, 11 [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 . 

may depart from the guidelines." 

Pilant acknowledges that only the government has the 

authority to move for a downward departure based on substantial 

assistance, that this court has upheld the constitutionality of§ 

5Kl.1, and that numerous due process challenges have been 

rejected. Even so, he argues that "that an exception to these 

principles may arise in a particularly egregious case 

[which] has been . described as one in which "'the prosecution 

stubbornly refuses to file a motion despite overwhelming evidence 

that the accused's assistance has been so substantial as to cry 

out for meaningful relief-(in which easel-the court would be 

justified in taking some corrective action.'"" (Defendant/ 

Appellant's Opening Brief at p. 4-5, quoting, United States v. 

Kuntz, 908 F.2d 655, 657 (10th Cir. 1990), quoting, United States 

v. La Guardia, 902 F.2d 1010, 1017 (1st Cir. 1990)) . 

Pilant contends that he was entitled to a downward departure 

because Baresch, Brison, and Stierman all pled guilty and received 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3376 Document: 010110285778 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 3
five-year sentences solely as a result of his actions and the 

district court noted that "I don't have much problem with the 

fact that he [Pilant] really did render substantial assistance 

" (R., Vol. I, Tab 32, p. , 22). 

The government responds that Pilant's 

rewarded inasmuch as he was allowed to plead 

cooperation was 

to an amended 

information and sentenced to twenty-four months while his coconspirators were sentenced to sixty months. The government also 

cites to the district court's observation that "the government 

renders cooperation in several ways, one of them is lessening the 

charge so I think the government did reward him in the 

nature of the charge which they eventually filed " (R., 

Vol. I, Tab 32 at pp. 21-22). 

At the outset, we observe that§ SKl.l "condition[s] the 

district court's consideration of defendant's substantial 

assistance claim upon a prior motion of the government." United 

States v, Perez, 955 F.2d 34, 35 (10th Cir. 1992), quoting, United 

States v. Kuntz, 908 F.2d 655, 657 (10th Cir. 1990). The 

government's"· motion is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a§ 

5Kl.l downward departure from the guidelines." United States v. 

!&Ilg, 936 F.2d 482, 483 (10th Cir. 1991), cert, denied, U.S. 

(1991). The government's motion under § 5Kl.l "is an 

unequivocal condition precedent; the court may not act sua sponte 

in such matters." United States v. Vargas. 925 F.2d 1260, 1267 

(10th Cir. 1991). 

Moreover, this is not a case in which the prosecution has 

stubbornly refused to file a§ 5Kl.l motion "despite overwhelming 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-3376 Document: 010110285778 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 4
evidence that the accused's assistance has been so substantial to 

cry out for meaningful relief." Kuntz, 908 F.2d at 657, quoting 

La Guardia, 902 F.2d at 1017. Rather, as noted by the district 

court, "the government did reward [Pilant] in the nature of the 

charge which they eventually filed and [upon which] the plea 

agreement was made." (R., Vol. I, Tab 32 at 21-22). 

We hold that the government's refusal to file a motion for 

downward departure was not so egregious as to justify corrective 

action. 

II. 

Pilant contends the requirement that the government file a 

motion in order for the court to consider a downward departure 

based on substantial assistance violates due process. Pilant 

states that he "is raising the issue here because of the United 

States Supreme Court's recent grant of certiorari review in United 

States v. Wade, 936 F.2d 169 (4th Cir. 1991) ." (Defendant/ 

Appellant's Opening Brief at p. 10). Hade, was affirmed in Hade, 

v. United States, U.S. __ , 112 S. Ct. 1840 (1992). 

We have also considered and rejected this argument. United 

states v. Deases, 918 F.2d 110, 120 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. 

denied. u.s. (1991); united States v. Sorensen, 915 F.2d 

599, 603 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, __ u.s. __ (1991); 

Kuntz, 908 F.2d at 657. 

III. 

Pilant contends that the case should be remanded for 

correction of a clerical error, i.e., to have the Judgment and 

Commitment Order reflect an adjusted offense level of "16" and 

-5-

Appellate Case: 91-3376 Document: 010110285778 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 5
criminal history category of "II." The government concedes that 

the Order should be amended to reflect the findings of the 

district court. 

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED_ to amend the Judgement and Commitment 

Order in accordance herewith . 

-6-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3376 Document: 010110285778 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 6