Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04331/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04331-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Howard Levern Snider
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4331

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Howard Levern Snider, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 20, 2006

Filed: November 27, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Howard Levern Snider appeals the district court’s1

 order denying his motion to

compel the government to file a substantial-assistance sentence-reduction motion.

Because Snider’s plea agreement provided that the government retained discretion to

decide whether to file a substantial-assistance motion, and because Snider did not

make a substantial threshold showing that the government’s refusal to do so was

prompted by an unconstitutional motive, such as Snider’s race or religion, or that the

government’s refusal was irrational, we agree with the district court that Snider was

Appellate Case: 05-4331 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2006 Entry ID: 2112533
-2-

not entitled to relief. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-87 (1992) (district

courts may review government’s refusal to file substantial-assistance motion and grant

remedy if refusal was based on unconstitutional motive, but defendant has no right to

discovery or evidentiary hearing unless he makes substantial threshold showing of

government’s improper motive); United States v. Pamperin, 456 F.3d 822, 825 (8th

Cir. 2006) (threshold showing requires more than presentation of evidence of

substantial assistance and general allegations of improper motive, because court

presumes prosecutor properly discharged her duties absent clear evidence to contrary);

United States v. Mullins, 399 F.3d 888, 890 (8th Cir. 2005) (relief for government’s

refusal to file substantial-assistance motion is provided only if such refusal was

prompted by unconstitutional motive or was irrational).

Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny Snider’s pending motions.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4331 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2006 Entry ID: 2112533