FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A U G U ST 31, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16698 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 3 8 9 - CR- T- 2 3 TBM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J A M E S D O R S E Y , a .k .a . M o u n ta in M a n , S A N D R A A V E R Y , a .k .a . S a n d r aD o r s e y , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 31, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg e:Do rs ey al so argues that his sentenc e wa s otherwise unreasona ble. Since wevacate the 1 sentenc e and remand f

or re sentenc ing, w e nee d not reach this claim. 2 J a m e s D o r s e y ( “D o r s e y ” ) a n d S a n d r aA v e ry ( “A v e ry ” ) ap p e a l th e ir c o n v ic tio n s f

o rd ru g c o n s p ir a c y a n d d ru g d is tr ib u tio n c h a r g e s a f te raju ry tr ia l. T h e y b o th c o n te n d th a t p r e tr ia l m o tio n s to s u p p r e s s e v id e n c e s e iz e d f r o m th e ir r e s i de nc e a nd i ntr oduc e d a tthe i rtr i a l s houl d ha ve be e n gr a nt e d be c aus e the af fi davi t s s up po rt i ng the se ar ch w arrant s c on t ai ned fal se st at em ent s and l ac ked pr obabl e c aus e . A f

t e rc a r e f ul r e vi e w , w e f

i nd tha tthe r e w a s s uf

f i c i e nt corr ob orat i ng i nform at i on i n the af fi davi t s t o sup po rta f

i nd i ng of prob abl e c ause , a n d a f f irm th e irc o n v ic tio n s w ith o u t f u rth e rd is c u s s io n . D o r s e y a ls o ap p e a ls h is s e n te n c e . H e a r g u e s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t r e f u s e d to f i l e am ot i on t o r e duc e hi s s e nt e nc e pur s ua ntt o U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne § 5 K 1 .1 to p u n is h h im f o re x e r c is in g h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to aju ry tr ia l, there by denyi ng hi m du e proces s of l aw . W e have notprevi ou sl y c on si dere d w he the rthe gove rnm e nt ’ s r e f us a l t o f i l e a§ 5K 1. 1 m ot i on be c aus e the de f e nda nt e xe r c i s e d hi s r i ghtt o aj ury tr i a l c ons t i tut e s a n unc ons t i tut i ona l m ot i ve . W e now h o ld th a t it d o e s , b u t w e a r e u n ab le to d e te rm in e w h e th e rth a t is w h a t to o kp la c e in th i s c a s e b e c au s e o f

i n s u f f i c i e n tf a c t - f i n d i n g a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u rt . T h e r e f o r e , we va c a t e D or s e y ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd thi s c a s e f orane w s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. 1 B AC KG R OU ND3

A tse nt enci ng , the di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned thatD orse y’ s a dv i sory G ui del i nes r ange w as 16 8 t o 2 10 m on ths. D orse y then m ov ed the courtt o com pel th e g o v e rn m e n t to f

ile am o tio n p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 .1 , b e c au s e a f te rh is arre sthe i m m edi at el y c oo pera t ed w i th the po l i ce . A ft erhi s arr es t , D orse y c al l ed hi s drug sup pl i er , S t eve W as hi ng t on , and l ef ta voi ce m es sa ge and the re turn t e l e phone num be rof

ade t e c t i ve w i th the S a r a s ot aP ol i c e D e pa rtm e nton W a s h in g to n ’s c e llu la rp h o n e . T h e n e x t m o rn in g , th e d e te c tiv e s p o k e to W as hi ng t on and arr anged t o p urchas e aqu art erki l og ra m of cocai ne. W hen W as hi ng t on arri ved t o d el i ver the cocai ne, the autho ri t i es arre st ed hi m and sei ze d th e c o c a in e . D o r s e y a s s e rte d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d e a r lie rin f o rm e d h im th a t h e c o u ld e a rn a§ 5K 1. 1 de pa rtur e be c aus e of hi s c oope r a t i on i f

he pl e d gui l ty . O nc e he deci ded t o g o t o tri al , the go vernm entdi d n otfi l e a§ 5 K 1. 1 m ot i on . D orse y ar g u ed th at th is co n stitu ted an im p er m issib le ex er cise o f th e g o v ern m en t’ s d is c r e tio n in r e f

u s in g to f

ile a§ 5 K 1 .1 m o tio n . T h e g o v e rn m e n t r e s p o n d e d th a t it h a d n e v e rto ld D o r s e y th a t h e h a d e a rn e d a§ 5 K 1 .1 d e p a rtu r e ; r a th e r , h e w a s to ld tha tthe c i r c um s t a nc e s s urr oundi ng the m i ni m a l a m ountof c oope r a t i on tha the p r o v i d e d wo u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d i f h e c o o p e r a t e d f

u l l y a n d c o m p l e t e l y . At s e n te n c in g , th e g o v e rn m e n t s ta te d th a t D o r s e y “c h o s e n o t to c o n tin u e w ith4

c oope r a t i on. H e c hos e t o go t o tr i a l . ” D or s e y r e s ponde d tha ti rr e s pe c t i ve of w he the rhi s c oope r a t i on w a s m i ni m a l ornot , i tw a s obvi ous tha thi s c oope r a t i on w as com pl et e, and the go vernm ent ’ s r ef usal t o m ov e f

or a § 5K 1. 1 d eparture bas ed on hi s de c i s i on t o go t o tr i a l w a s a n unc ons t i tut i ona l m ot i ve . W i thoute xpl a na t i on, the di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d D or s e y ’ s m ot i on. DI S C US S I ON We r e v i e w de nov o w hether the di stri ctcourthas the autho ri ty t o d epart dow nw a r d f

r om the gui de l i ne r a nge unde r§ 5K 1. 1 i n the abs e nc e of am ot i on by th e g o v e rn m e n t. See U ni ted Stat es v. Forney , 9 F .3 d 1 4 9 2 , 1 4 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . S e c t i on 5K 1. 1 of

the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s pr ovi de s tha t“ [ u] pon m ot i on of the gove rnm e nts t a t i ng tha tthe de f e nda ntha s pr ovi de d s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e i n the i nve s t i ga t i on orpr os e c ut i on of a nothe rpe r s on w ho ha s c om m i tt e d a n of f e ns e , the c ourtm a y de pa rtf

r om the gui de l i ne s . ” U . S . S . G . § 5K 1. 1. W e ha ve s t a t e d tha tthe go vernm enthas “ ‘ a pow er , no ta duty, t o fi l e am ot i on w hen a defendanthas subst ant i al l y a ss i st ed. ’ ” Forney , 9 F . 3d a t1500 ( quot i ng W ade v . U ni ted Stat es , 5 0 4 U .S . 1 8 1 , 1 8 5 , 1 1 2 S . C t. 1 8 4 0 , 1 8 4 3 , 1 1 8 L . E d . 2 d 5 2 4 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ) . T h e r e f o r e , a d is tr ic t c o u rt c a n n o t g r a n t ad o w n w a r d d e p a rtu r e f o rs u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e ab s e n t a m o tio n b y th e g o v e rn m e n t. Id . a t1 5 0 1 . H o w e v e r , th e U n i t e d St a t e s Su p r e me C o u rt h eld th at “fed er al d istrict co u rts h av e a u th o rity to re v iew a p ro se cu to r’s5

re fusa l t o fi l e asubst ant i al -a ss i st ance m ot i on and t o g ranta r em edy i f they f i nd that the re fusa l w as base d o n an u ncon st i tut i on al m ot i ve, ” l i ke “ ra ce or re l i gi on . ” W ade , 5 0 4 U . S. a t1 8 5 - 8 6 , 1 1 2 S. Ct . a t1 8 4 3 - 4 4 . A d e f e n d a n tw h o me r e l y c l a i ms t o ha ve pr ovi de d s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e orw ho m a ke s onl y ge ne r a l i z e d a l l e ga t i ons o f a n im p r o p e rm o tiv e is n o t e n title d to ar e m e d y o re v e n to a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g . I d. at18 6, 11 2 S . C t . at18 44 . T hu s, j ud i ci al re vi ew i s app ropri at e onl y “ w hen the r e i s a n a l l e ga t i on and as u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g th a t th e p r o s e c u tio n r e f u s e d to f ile as u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e m o tio n b e c au s e o f ac o n s titu tio n a llyim p e rm is s ib le m ot i vat i on . ” Forney , 9 F .3 d a t 1 5 0 2 . W e have notprevi ou sl y dec i ded w hether the go vernm ent ’ s r ef usal t o fi l e a§ 5K 1. 1 m ot i on t o p un i sh a def endantfor e xerc i si ng hi s c on st i tut i on al ri gh tt o a j ury tri al i s an u ncon st i tut i on al m ot i ve un der W ade , b u t th e T h ir d a n d N in th C ir c u its ha ve . T he y both he l d tha tr e f us i ng t o f

i l e a§ 5K 1. 1 t o puni s h ade f e nda ntf or ex erci si n g th i s ri g h ti s an u n co n st i tu t i o n al m o t i v e, an d th e T en th C i rcu i th as al so s a id s o , a lb e it in d ic ta . U n i ted S ta tes v. Kh o u ry , 62 F . 3d 11 38 , 11 41 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) ; Un i te d

S ta te s v . P a r a mo , 99 8 F . 2d 12 12 , 12 19 -20 (3d C i r. 19 93 ); U ni ted Stat es v. E aster , 98 1 F . 2d 15 49 , 15 55 (10th C i r. 19 92 ). W hi l e the go vernm entm ay re fu se to file a § 5 K 1 .1 fo r m an y r ea so n s, an d itis w ith in th e g o v ern m en t’ s d is c r e tio n to d o s o , “[ t]o p u n is h ap e r s o n b e c au s e h e h a s d o n e w h a t th e la w p la in ly6

a llo w s h im to d o is ad u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n o f th e m o s t b a s ic s o rt.” B ordenki rc her v. H ayes , 4 3 4 U .S . 3 5 7 , 3 6 3 , 9 8 S . C t. 6 6 3 , 6 6 8 , 5 4 L . E d . 2 d 6 0 4 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a gree w i th o ur si st erci rc ui t s and ho l d thatre fusi ng t o fi l e a§ 5K 1. 1 m ot i on i n r e tr i but i on f ore xe r c i s i ng the S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o atr i a l by j ury i s an u ncon st i tut i on al m ot i ve un der W ade . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed D orse y’ s m ot i on w i tho utexpl anat i on . T here fore , w e c a n n o t b e c e rta in th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt b e lie v e d th a t it h a d th e au th o r ityto departdo w nw ar d absenta m ot i on by the go vernm ent . S i nce w e hol d the di stri ct c o u rt h a s s u c h au th o r ity , w e v a c a te D o r s e y ’s s e n te n c e a n d r e m a n d th e c a s e b a c kto the di stri ctcourtt o d et erm i ne w hether D orse y c an es t abl i sh a “ subst ant i al show i ng ” thatthe go vernm ent ’ s r ef usal t o fi l e asubst ant i al as si st ance m ot i on w as b a s e d o n a n u n c o n s titu tio n a l m o tiv e . O n r e m a n d , D o r s e y h a s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g p r o s e c u to r ia l v in d ic tiv e n e s s . W e h av e fo u n d th at“ a su p ersed i n g i n d i ctm en tad d i n g n ew ch arg es th ati n crease the po t ent i al penal ty w ou l d v i ol at e due process i f the prosecut or ob t ai ned the new c ha r ge s outof

vi ndi c t i ve ne s s [ , a nd] [ v] i ndi c t i ve ne s s i n thi s c ont e xtm e a ns the desi re t o p un i sh a per son for exerc i si ng hi s r i gh t s. ” U ni ted Stat es v. B arner , 441 F .3 d 1 3 1 0 , 1 3 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T h e s a m e r e a s o n in g ap p lie s to ap r o s e c u to r ia l d e c is io n n o t to f ile a§ 5 K 1 .1 m o tio n . Se e P a r a mo , 99 8 F . 2d at7

1220 ( f i ndi ng tha tthe de f

e nda ntm us tpr ove pr os e c ut or i a l vi ndi c t i ve ne s s i n a r e f u s a l to f ile a§ 5 K 1 .1 c la im ) ; s e e al s o U ni te d State s v . Mur

phy , 65 F . 3d 758, 762 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( s a m e ) . A de f e nda ntm a y e s t abl i s h vi ndi c t i ve ne s s by e i the rs how i ng f a c t s tha tgi ve rise to a p re su m p ti o n o f v in d icti v en es s o r b y o ff er in g ev id en ce o f a p ro se cu to r’s a c tu a l v in d ic tiv e n e s s . P a r a mo , 9 9 8 F . 2 d at1 2 2 0 . A p resu m p t i o n o f v i n d i ct i v en ess

“ m a y ope r a t e i n the abs e nc e of a ny pr oof

of a n i m pr ope rm ot i v[ e ; ] ” the r e f or e , the p r e s u m p tio n o n lyap p lie s w h e n th e f a c tu a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s in d ic a te a“r e a s o n ab le lik e lih o o d o f

v in d ic tiv e n e s s .” U

n ite d S ta te s v . G o o dw in , 4 5 7 U . S. 3 6 8 , 3 7 3 , 1 0 2 S. C t . 2 4 8 5 , 2 4 8 8 , 7 3 L . E d . 2 d 7 4 (1 9 8 2 ). If a d efen d an tsu ccessfu l l y est ab l i sh es a r e a s onabl e l i ke l i hood of vi ndi c t i ve ne s s , the gove rnm e ntc a n ove r c om e the p r e s u m p tio n w ith o b

je c tiv e e v id e n c e ju s tif

y in g its c o n d u c t. Se e id . a t3 7 4 , 1 0 2 S. C t . a t2489. I n thi s c a s e , the gove rnm e nts t a t e d tha ti tdi d notf i l e a§ 5K 1. 1 m ot i on be c aus e D or s e y ’ s a s s i s t anc e w a s nots ubs t a nt i a l a nd tha the s t a rt e d de a l i ng drugs agai n. T here fore , even i f apres um pt i on of vi nd i ct i veness coul d app l y i n thi s c as e, th e g o v e rn m e n t h a s p r o f f e r e d le g itim a te r e a s o n s f o rits f a ilu r e to f

ile a§ 5 K 1 .1 m o tio n . T h e r e f

o r e , D o r s e y w ill h a v e to p r o v e a c tu a l v in d ic tiv e n e s s . Se e P a r a mo , 99 8 F . 2d at12 21 . “ T hi s s ho w i ng i s, of course , exce edi ng l y di ff i cul tt o m ake. ” U ni ted Stat es v. Mey er , 81 0 F . 2d 12 42 , 12 45 (D . C . C i r. 19 87 ). T o p rove actual8

vi nd i ct i veness , D orse y m ustpres entobj ec t i ve evi dence thatthe go vernm entac t ed sol el y t o p un i sh hi m for e xerc i si ng hi s l egal ri gh t s, and thatthe re as on s proff er ed b y th e g o v e rn m e n t a r e p r e te x tu a l. I d. ; P a r a mo , 9 9 8 F .2 d a t 1 2 2 1 . D orse y c anno tes t abl i sh prosec ut ori al vi nd i ct i veness by subm i tt i ng evi dence thatthe go vernm entm er el y c arri ed ou ti t s threa tno tt o fi l e a§ 5 K 1. 1 m ot i on that w a s m a d e d u r in g p le an e g a tio n s . See B ordenki rc her , 4 3 4 U .S . a t 3 6 3 - 6 5 , 9 8 S . C t. a t668- 69. I n B ordenki rc her , the S up re m e C ou rtst at ed that“ i n the ‘ gi ve-and -t ake’ of pl eabargai ni ng , there i s no such el em entof pu ni shm entor re t al i at i on so l on g as the ac cuse d i s f

re e t o acc eptor re

j ec tthe prosec ut i on ’ s off er . ” Id . a t 3 6 3 , 9 8 S . C t. at66 8. W hi l e B ordenki rc heri nv ol ved a prosecut or’ s dec i si on t o see k h ei gh t ened char ges, the sa m e r ea soni ng appl i es t o a prosec ut i on ’ s dec i si on no tt o fi l e a§ 5 K 1 .1 m o tio n . P a r a mo , 9 9 8 F . 3 d at1 2 2 1 . T h e reco rd i s n o tcl ear i n th i s case w hether the go vernm entthrea t ened t o w i thh ol d a § 5 K 1. 1 m ot i on du ri ng the “ gi vea n d - ta k e ” o f

its p le an e g o tia tio n s w ith D o r s e y . A s lo n g a s D o r s e y w a s f r e e to ac ce p t o r r ejec t th e g o v ern m en t’ s o ff er , th e g o v ern m en t d idn o t v io late D o rs ey ’s r ig h ts w h e n it e v e n tu a llyc a rr ie d o u t its th r e a t n o t to f ile th e § 5 K 1 .1 m o tio n . W e l ea ve these i ss ues t o the di stri ctcourtt o d ec i de af t erfurther f

ac t -f i nd i ng ata new s e n te n c in g h e a r in g . A FFI R M ED I N PA R T, VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED I N PA R T