Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05194/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05194-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Paul Bolain
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LBD 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Uoited Stare, tou,r of Appeals 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

LARRY PAUL BOLAIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

1'cnth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MAY 2'11991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-5194 

(D.C. No. 90-CR-60-B) 

( N. D . Okla . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and FINESILVER, 

District Judge.** 

Defendant-appellant Larry Paul Bolain entered a conditional 

plea of guilty, Fed. R. Crim. P. ll(a)(2), to one count of 

possession of unregistered firearms, 26 u.s.c. §§ 5841, 5861(d) & 

5871. In exchange for the plea, the government agreed to dismiss 

the remaining counts of the indictment and to file a motion for a 

two-level downward departure in sentencing based upon defendant's 

assistance to the government. See U.S.S.G. § 5Kl.1, p.s. 

(substantial assistance to authorities). The district court 

* 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. 

** Honorable Sherman G. Finesilver, Chief United States District 

Judge for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-5194 Document: 010110116636 Date Filed: 05/24/1991 Page: 1 
dismissed the remaining counts of the indictment, granted the 

government's motion for a two-level downward departure and 

sentenced the defendant to thirty-six months imprisonment followed 

by supervised release for the same term. Defendant appeals, 1 

claiming that the district court should have (1) dismissed the 

entire indictment because defendant's status as a confidential 

informant was revealed, and (2) granted a downward departure in 

excess of two levels. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 u.s.c. 

§ 1291. We affirm. 

After his arrest, defendant provided the government with 

information concerning a plot to assassinate one or more 

participants in a pending trial. The government then apprehended 

a suspect based upon this information. Subsequently, government 

agents interviewed defendant's former girlfriend and potential 

government witness. During that interview, the former girlfriend 

stole the report containing defendant's information. The suspect 

learned of defendant's identity as the informant. Given this turn 

of events, defendant seeks to dismiss the indictment. 

Defendant agrees with the government that the theft of the 

report by defendant's former girlfriend was not the result of 

government abuse, bad faith or vindictiveness. Appellant's Reply 

Brief at 1-2. The absence of prosecutorial misconduct and 

prejudice arising from that prosecutorial misconduct is fatal to 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5194 Document: 010110116636 Date Filed: 05/24/1991 Page: 2 
defendant's argument that the indictment should have been 

dismissed. See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 

250, 255 (1988). According to the defendant, the government's lax 

security or negligence is to blame for the disclosure of his 

identity to the suspect. Appellant's Reply Brief at 2. 

Regrettable as this incident may be, dismissal of an indictment on 

constitutional or supervisory grounds is a drastic remedy, plainly 

inappropriate without full consideration and rejection of more 

narrowly tailored measures to deter improper prosecutorial 

conduct. United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 506-507 (1983). 

Defendant has not addressed this aspect of his request. 

Defendant does not claim that his sentence was inconsistent 

with his reasonable understanding of the plea agreement. See 

United States v. Shorteeth, 887 F.2d 253, 256 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Rather, he claims that the district court should have made a more 

substantial downward departure based upon u.s.s.G. § 5Kl.l.(a)(4) 

which allows consideration of "any danger or risk of injury to the 

defendant or his family resulting from his assistance" to the 

government. The record indicates that the district court 

exercised its discretion concerning downward departure; we lack 

jurisdiction to review that exercise of discretion. See United 

States v. Davis, 900 F.2d 1524, 1529-30 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

111 S. Ct. 155 (1990). 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-5194 Document: 010110116636 Date Filed: 05/24/1991 Page: 3