Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_00-cr-20053/USCOURTS-arwd-2_00-cr-20053-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antonio Triplett
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. 2:00CR20053-001 

ANTONIO TRIPLETT DEFENDANT

ORDER

Currently before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Downward

Departure for Substantial Assistance Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1.

(Doc. 53) and the Government’s Response (Doc. 54). Defendant

moves the Court to grant a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 5K1.1, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) and Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. Defendant contends the Government induced him

to “talk” by agreeing to consider moving for a downward departure

if Defendant provided substantial assistance while having no

intent to file such a motion. 

The Government has no duty to make a substantial assistance

motion unless it has entered into a plea agreement with the

defendant that creates such a duty. United States v. Ziesman, 409

F.3d 941 (8 Cir. 2005)(citation omitted). In the absence of such th

a duty, a district court may review the Government’s refusal to

make a substantial assistance motion only if the Government’s

decision was based on an unconstitutional motive or was not

rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Id. The

defendant must make a “substantial threshold showing” of one of

these improper motives in order to justify a review. Id.

Case 2:00-cr-20053-PKH Document 55 Filed 12/09/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Defendant has failed to make such a “substantial threshold

showing” in this case.

In his motion, Defendant acknowledges that his plea agreement

clearly states that the Government made no promise to request a

downward departure but only agreed to consider it based upon the

nature and extent of Defendant’s cooperation. (Doc. 53, p. 3).

Defendant provides no evidence of any improper motive of the

Government in its decision to not request a downward departure.

Further, as Defendant did not raise this issue at sentencing, on

appeal, or in his 18 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, he has waived any

objection at this point. United States v. Murphy, 248 F.3d 777

(8 Cir. 2001). Upon due consideration, the motion is hereby th

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of December 2005.

/s/ Robert T. Dawson

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:00-cr-20053-PKH Document 55 Filed 12/09/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>