Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01775/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01775-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William D. Lamb
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1775

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

William D. Lamb, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 7, 2007

Filed: March 12, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Following his guilty plea, William D. Lamb was convicted of one count of

conspiracy to distribute 500 or more grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841. The district court1

 imposed a sentence of 312 months

in prison, to be followed by five years of supervised release. On appeal, Lamb

challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to compel the government to file

a substantial-assistance sentence-reduction motion and further argues that the court

erred in imposing a sentence within his advisory Guidelines range. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-1775 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2007 Entry ID: 3287081
-2-

Lamb’s plea agreement did not include any language regarding Lamb’s

potential cooperation, and the parties confirmed at Lamb’s guilty plea hearing that his

cooperation was not anticipated as a part of the bargain. While Lamb complains that

he was not credited for his pre-indictment assistance, he admits that he provided that

assistance as part of a prior non-prosecution agreement, the terms of which he

violated. The government’s refusal to move for a substantial assistance departure was

not unconstitutional, and thus the court’s refusal to compel that motion was

appropriate. See United States v. Mullins, 399 F.3d 888, 890 (8th Cir. 2005) (where

plea agreement does not require government to file substantial assistance motion,

district court may intervene only if government’s refusal to make such motion was

based on unconstitutional motive, such as unlawful discrimination or other action not

rationally related to legitimate governmental interest). Moreover, Lamb directs us to

nothing in the record to support his claim that the district court did not recognize its

sentencing discretion or that his Guidelines sentence was unreasonable. See United

States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence is unreasonable if it

appears district court gave significant weight to improper factor, failed to fully

consider appropriate factor, or otherwise made clear error of judgment).

Independently reviewing the entirety of the record, we are satisfied the court

understood that the Guidelines were advisory and properly considered the factors

enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in fashioning its sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1775 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2007 Entry ID: 3287081