## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 2307 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D ARNEL L C. B I LL I NGS, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 05 C R 20041

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Chief Ju dge

.
A RG UE D A PRI L 16, 2008

— D ECIDED O CT OB ER 8, 2008

Befo reE A ST E RB ROO K, Chie f Judge, and W OOD and W IL L IAMS, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . Defendant Darnel l Bi l l i ngs r ec ei ve d a statut o r y min i m um s en te nc e o fl i f e i m pr i so nm ent a fterpl eadi ng g uil ty to dea li ng o ver50 gr am s o f cra ck coca i ne. H e cl ai m s the go ver nm ent shoul d have re w ar ded hi s co oper ati on by fi l i ng a substa nti alas si sta nce m oti on under 1 8 U.S.C . § 35 53( e) , wh i ch w oul d have f r ee d the di st r i ctc o ur t to s en te nc e hi m below th e st atuto ry m in im u m . B illing s a lso c laim s th e g ov er n m en t s h ou ld2 N o. 07

- 2307 have tol d him thathi s incarc er ate d status w oul d m ake i t mo r e di ffi c ul tf o r h i m t o c o o pe r a t e wi th a utho r i ti es. Bec au se the gover nm en t di d no t ac t i m pr o per l y i n wi th

hol ding the s ubstanti alas si sta nce m oti on and beca use i t had no du ty to in for m B i l l i ngs about the ne gat i ve c o n s e q u e n c e s o fh i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n, w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND On Septem ber2, 20 04 , B i l l i ngs s ol d crac k c oca i ne to a confi denti ali nfo rm ant in Cham pai gn, I l l i noi s. H e was ar re sted fo r th i s co nd uct o n A ugust 5 , 20 05, and l ate r i ndi ct ed o n o ne c o unto fknow i ng l y po ss es singwi ththe i ntent to dist ribute m or e than 50 g ram s o fcr ack coca i ne, in viol ation of 21 U

. S. C

. § 841(a)( 1). A t a n A u gu st 3, 20 06 , he ar in g, B illing s p led gu ilty . In doi ng so , he te st ifi ed that he underst oo d that b ecause o f tw o pri orqual i fyi ng drug convi cti ons, he f aced a m andato r y min i m um s en te nc e o fl i f e im p ris o nm en t unl es s th e go ver nm ent m ove d fo r a down w ar d dep ar ture bas ed on h is c oo p er at ion an d as sis ta n c e. See i d. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ; 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 553( e)
. The dist ric t j ud ge prom i sed he w oul d sentence Bi l l i ng s to l es s th an l i f e i m pr i so nm en t i f th e gove r nm en t m o ve d f o r a do wnw ar d de par tu r e, b utthe g o ve r nm en t st at ed th atBi ll i ng s ha d y ett o c o o per at e. Af te r the hear i ng, Bi l l i ngs a nd the go ve rn m ent e nter ed a c oo perat i o n a g r e e men t, th e co nt e nt s o fwhi c h a r e n o ti n the r e c o r d. On J an ua r y 12 , 20 07, Bi l l i ng s appe ar ed f o r hi s se nt en ci ng hear i ng. Bi l l i ngs’s c ou nselas ked to del ay sente nci ng by si xty da y s to g i ve Bi l l i ng s m o r e ti m e to c oop er at e. TheN o. 07

- 2307 3 gov er nm ent di d not obj ect to the e x te n sio n but i nd i cate d that ti m e was r unning o ut f orBi l l i ngs. The pro se c utor i n char ge ofthe case d escribed how B i l l i ngs had f ai l ed to tak e a dvantage o fa previ ous o pp or tuni ty to co oper ate b e f o r e h e h a d b e e n i nc a r c e r a t e d: Pri orto [ fi l i ng the co m pla i nt] , the gov er nm ent t oo k th e unus ua l ste p o fa sk i nga g en ts t o a r r es t th e defe nd ant w i thout a warr ant o n probabl e ca use s o th at w e c ou ld sp ea k w ith h im w ith o u t a n y p u b lic fi l i ng o f c ha r g e s a b o ut thi s v e r y i s s ue , the f act th athe f ac ed a m an d ato r y s en te nc e o fl i f e i fhe w er e t o be c harg ed and convi cted, and w e di d that so t h at w e c ou ld a d vis e h im o f t h at lik ely sc en ar io an d t o g i ve hi m the o ppo r tu ni ty wi th o uta ny d is c l o s u r e t o t h e p u b lic t h at w e w er e g ivin g h im that opportunity. And after m ee tingwi thhi m i n my o ffi ce a nd i n, Ibel i eve , J anuary of 2005 , two ye ar s a go, we never he ard fr o m hi m a g ain; a nd we en ded up fi l i ng th e co m pl ainti n F eb r ua r y of 2 005 a nd the n s pen t th e ne xts i x months l o o k i ngf o r hi m , a t whi chpo i nt i n Aug us to f2 0 0 5 h e wa s a r r e s t e d. The pros ecuto r al so sta ted thatal though Billings had “m ade an a tte m pt to m eetwith l aw enfo rce m ent o nce” after ple ading gui l ty, “ther e w as no i nfo rm ati on th at [h e] had provi ded thatwas ofany ass i sta nce t o [ the a gents ] w h at so ev er .” On M ay 25, 20 07, Bi l l i ngs a pp ear ed forthe re schedule d se n te n c in g h ea rin g. A n ew p ro se c u to r ap p ea re d on be h alf o fthe g o ve r nm en t afte r b eingb r i efed o n the c as e bythe4 N o. 07

- 2307

T he d istrict co u rt erred b y f ailing to allo w B illing s to alloc u te 1 p ri o r t o sen te n ci n g . S ee U ni t ed Sta t es v. Luepke, 495 F. 3d 443, 451 (7th C ir. 20 07 ); Fe d

. R . C rim . P
. 32 (i) (4)( A )( ii)
. B illing s con ced es, howeve r, thathe was no tpr ej udi c ed by thi s e rr or be c aus e he f ac ed a m anda t or y m i ni m um l i f e s en t en c e, s o the re i s no c hanc e thathe “woul d have r ec ei ved a l es s er s en t en c e had the dist ri ct court heard from him befor e i m posing s ente nce. ” Luepke, 4 9 5 F
. 2 d at45 1
. Bi l l i ng s al s o do e s n otc l a i m tha th e wou l d h a ve sa i d a n y th i n g th a tw o u l d h a v e c h a n g e d th e g o v e r n m e n t ’s dec i s i on t o wi thho l d a s ubs t ant i al as s i s t anc e m ot i on. Addit i onal l y, recen t cha nge s t o s en t en c i ng pr ac t i c es f or c ra c k c oc ai ne defe nd ants could not have affect ed thes e proceed ing s beca u se B ill i n g s fac ed a m a n d a to ry m in im u m life sen te n ce . S ee U ni t ed Sta t es v. K i m bro ugh , 128 S. Ct . 558 ( 2007) ; Un it ed Stat es S en tenc ing Co m m is sio n G u id el in es M a n u a l (U .S.S .G .) § § 1B 1 .10 , 2D 1 .1 (2 0 0 7 ). pr o se cut o r i n cha r g e abo utan ho urbefo r e th e he ar i ng . The n ew pro secuto r sta ted thatthe gov er nm ent woul d not m ove f ora dow nw ar d d ep ar ture bec ause Bil l i ngs’ s a ttem pts to co oper ate had not “r i sen t o the l eve l o fsubsta nti al ass i sta nce. ” H e re m ar ked on Bil l i ngs’s extensi ve cr i m i na l hi st ory a nd s ta te d tha t he was “ st r uck ” bythe f act that Bil l i ngs “m anage d at a ge 27 to have 10 chi l dren f r o m s i x d i ff e r e n two me n, a l l o fwh o m wi l l n o w b e wi th

out a f ather

. ” The new prose cutoral so acknow l edged that he c o ul d n o tp r o v i de a nymo r e de t a i l s o n the c ase because he wa s m er el y s tandi ng i n f orthe pros ecuto r i n char ge ofthe case . T he j ud ge th en sent en ced Bi lli ng s to the m an d atory m in im u m of life im p ris on m en t. B illing s filed th is a p p ea l. 1N o. 07

- 2307 5 II. A N A L Y S IS A. Th e g o v e r nmen tdi d n o ti mpr o pe r l ywi t hho l d a s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e mo t i o n. Bi l l i ng s c l a i ms the g o v e r nme nti mpr o pe r l y w i thh e l d a su bs ta nt i ala ss i st an ce mot i o n, the r eb y pr ev en tingthe d istri ct cou rt f r o m sent en cing h im below the sta tu tory m i n im u m of life im p ris on m en t. See 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( e) ( “U pon m oti on o fthe G overnm ent, the cour t s hal l have the a uth or ity t o i m pose a s entence bel ow a l eve l es tabl i shed by sta tute as a m i ni m um se ntence so as to r efl ect a de f e nd a nt ’ s s ub s t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e i n the i nv e s t i g a t i on o r p ro secuti on o fano therper son w ho has co m m i tte d an off ense. ”)
. A l though a pro secuto r gener al l y has di scr eti on to w i thhol d such a m otion , “federa l di str i ct c ourt s hav e author i ty to re vi ew a pros ecuto r’ s r efusalto fi l e a subst an tial

- ass i sta nce m oti on a nd to gr ant a r em edy i fthey fi nd thatthe re fusalwas base d on an unconsti tuti onal m oti ve, ” o r “w as not ra ti onal l y r el ate d to any l egi ti m ate Gover nm ent e nd

. ” Wa de v . U nited Sta tes , 504 U
. S. 18 1, 18 5- 86 (1 99 2); see also U nited Sta tes v. M iller, 45 8 F
. 3d 603, 60 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 006). Beca us e Bi l l i ng s di d no t r ai se thi s ar g um en t in the d istri ct cou rt, o u r r eview i s for p lai n error. See Un i t e d S t a t e s v . O l ano , 50 7 U.S

. 72 5, 73 2 ( 1992 ) ( dist ri ct c ou rtm u st h av e c om m itt e d a n “ er ro r” th at is “p lain ,” “a ff ec t[ s] s ubs ta nt i alr i g ht s, ” an d “ se r i o us ly aff ec t[ s] the f ai rnes s, i nt eg rit y o r pu bl i c r eputati on o fj ud i ci alpro ceed ings”). W e a g r e e wi th B i l l i n g s th a t th e r e a r e s o me g a p s i n t he r ec o r d r e g a r d i n g th e t y p e a n d l e v e l o f a s s i s t a n c e th athe p rovi ded to the g o ve r nm en t. The c o o per at i o n a g r ee m en t6 N o. 07

- 2307 be twe enBi l l i ng s an d the gov er nm en t i s ab se ntfr o m the re cor d. A t the fi rs t s entenci ng hea ri ng, the pros ecuto r in ch ar ge of th e c as e m en tio n ed bu t d id n otd es c rib e in an y de ta i l ho w Bi l l i ng s ha d c o o per at ed after pl ea di ng gui l ty
. And a t th e r es ch edu l ed se nt en ci nghe ar i ng, the new pro secuto r w as unabl e t o describe a ny co oper ati on att em pts since he had j oi ned the case onl y an hourbefor ehand

. Per haps the gov er nm en t coul d have e l abor ate d on th e as si st an ce tha t Bi l l i ng s ha d o ff er ed an d e xpl aine d why it had fa l l en sho rt
. Or m aybe the gov er nm ent ne verd id th i s be c a u s e B i l l i n g s n e v e r mo v e d t o c o mpe l th e g o v e r nm en t to fi l e a su bs ta nt i ala ss i st an ce mot i o n. A t an y rat e, B illing s m u st m ak e a “s u b st an tia l th re sh old s ho wi ng ” tha tthe g o v e r nme nti mpr o pe r l y wi thh e l d a substa nti alas si sta nce m ot ion befor e he can r ecei ve a re med y o r e v e n di s c o v e r y o r a n e v i de nt i a r y he a ri ng o n th is iss u e. Wade, 504 U .S. at 1 86 . B illing s t rie s t o d o t h is bypo i nt i ngt o the ne w prosecut o r ’ s co m m en ts a t th e r e s c he du l e d s e n t e n c i n gh e a r i n g . H e c l a i ms th e s e c o mmen t s a r e e v i de nc e tha tthe g o v e r nme ntw i th he l d a su bsta nt ialassistan ce m otion bec au se of Bil li ng s’s nu m erous pas t co nvi cti ons and the m yriad chi l dren he had f athe r e d. I fthi s we r e t r ue , the g o v e r nme ntwo ul d h a ve ac te d im p er m iss ibly

. See U nite d State s v. R o u n sav all , 12 8 F.3d 66 5, 6 69 ( 8th Ci r . 1 99 7) ( “[ W ] he n c o nt empl at i ng fi l i ng a §3 55 3( e) m oti on, the gov er nm ent c annot base i ts deci si on o n f acto rs o therthan the s ubstanti alas si sta nce pr o vi ded bythe de f en dan t. ”)
. Buta c l o se r re vi ew o fthe tr anscr i pt fro m thathear i ng sho w s that the new prose cutor w as m erely exp lai nin g w hy Bill ings w as eli gible for aN o. 07

- 2307 7

m andator y l i f e s entence a n d sum m i ng up the few f acts that he kne w abo ut the case : The r e ha ve b ee n a tt empts t o h ave c o o per at i o n. N one ofi t has r i sen t o t h e leve l o fsubst anti al as sis ta n c e. . . .

. . . Beyond that, Your H onor, Ica n o n l y s ay thi s i s a se nt en ce tha t i s m an dat ed byCo ng r es s. The de f en d an t i s a

— i s the ty pe ofdefendant Congre ss has s ai d fi ts w i thi n the cri ter i a f orthr ee str i kes

. H e has bee n i nvol ved i n cri m i nal act i vi ty si nce ag e 1 7, a n d e v e n ha s a j u v e n i l e r e c o r d b e f o r e th e n . He ha s acc um ul at ed a st ag g er i nga m o unto fs er i o us f el ony convi cti ons, as w el l as a num bero fm i nor co nv ict i o ns . He s ee m s to no t ca r e ata l l abo utthe l a w. Anothe r thi ngtha t st r uck m e was I ’ m s ad to s ayhe has m anage d at a ge 27 to have 10 chi l dren fro m si x diff er ent wom en , a llo fwh om wil l now be wi tho uta f a the r . S o t o tha te xt ent, tha t ’ s the s a ddes t par t ab ou t the c as e i n my o pi ni o n, Yo ur H onor. Y ou r H on or , Ica n ’t p r o v i d e a n y m or e d et ails b ec a u s e I’m st an d in g in for [t h e p ro se c u to r in charg e o fthi s ca se]
. Thi s i s no t m y c ase . T h e n e w p r o s e c u t o r me n t i o n e d B i l l i n g s ’ s p r e v i o u s c r i mina l a c t ivity to exp lai n w hy he faced a m an d atory li fe sente nce. A nd wh i l e the ne w pro secuto r m i ght ha ve been8 N o. 07

- 2307

ex pr es singhi s di sa ppr o val wi thBi l l i ng s’ s appa r en t p r o mi s c u i t y, h i s r e ma r kw a s me r e l y a n a s i d e tha t s e e ms unr el at ed to th e g o ve r nm en t’ s dec i si o n t o wi thho l d the substa nti alas si sta nce m oti on. I nd eed, the ne w pro secuto r ackno w l ed ge d t h at he was m er el y s peaki ng o n behal fo f th e pr o se cut o r i n c ha r g e o fthe c as e an d was notthe perso n w ho had deci ded to withhol d a subst anti alas si stance m oti on. S entenci ng H r’ g Tr
. 7- 8, M ay 25, 20 07. ( “T he r e i s no c ha ng e in the s ta tu s [ o fthi s ca se ]
. [ The pros ecuto r i n char ge] so advi sed m e a pp ro x im ate l y a n hou r ago. ”). M or eov er, Bi l l i ngs’ s co unsel es senti al l y c onceded at the he ar in g th at the gov er nm ent had a ra ti onalbas i s f or w i thhol ding thi s m oti on be cause Bil l i ngs’ s incarc er ati on had render ed hi m usel ess to the gov er nm ent: [ Bil l i ngs] has m et w i th peopl e s eve ra l ti m es, ag ents se ve ra l tim es . B u t t h e p ro b lem is , is b ec au se of h is l ong i ncarc er ati on, f orwh ate verr eas ons, i t was b e f o r e my t i me, a p e r s o n who h a s b e e n i n c us t o dy f ora peri od ofti m e i s no t a per son w ho peo ple o n th e outs ide are going to d eal, talk w ith, give i nform a t i o n t o h e l p i n gth e ms e l v e s wi th th e g o ve r nm ent. I t was no t th athe di d no t tr y t o he l p the g o vern m en t. I t w as j us t h e w as u na ble. A nd Ithink th ere i s a ver y bi g diff er ence between so m eone wh o j ust r efus es t o c o o per at e wi ththe g o ve r nm en t an d so m eone wh o tr i es, but because o fhi s s i tuati on i s unabl e. See a lso U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ki ng, 62 F. 3d 891, 895 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ( “I ncarc er ate d defen d an ts cannot, o n bal ance, pro vi de asN o. 07

- 2307 9

m ucha ss i st an ce a s defen dan ts who a r e f r ee pe ndi ng tr i al

. ”)
. Bi l l i ng s do es notci te ( an d w e ha ve no t f o und) a ny l aw re quir i ng the gov er nm ent to m ake a su bsta nti al ass i sta nce m oti on w hen a defe nd ant m ake s a n unsuccess ful yet go od f ai th at tem pt to hel p. Rather, under sect i on 3 553( e) , the go ver nm ent g ets to deci de w hether a defendant’s co oper atio n m er i ts a s ubstanti alas si sta nce m ot ion
. See Wade, 50 4 U.S

. at18 5 ( noti ng tha t “ the Gover nm en t [h as] a pow er, nota du ty, to fi l e a m oti on wh en a defendant has substa nti al l y a ssi ste d” ); cf. 1 8 U. S

. C. § 35 53 ( f ) ( per m i tt i nga c o ur t to s en te nc e b el o w a s ta tu
to r y m i ni m um i n ce r ta i n si tu at i o ns ev en i f th e g o ve r nmen tdo e s no t s up po r t s uc h a s e nt e nc e )
. W e c a nn o ts e c o nd

g ue ss the g o ve r nm en t’ s dec i si o n to wi thho l d a s ubs ta nti alas si sta nce m oti on w h er e, as her e, i ts deci si on was nei theri rr atio nal norbas ed on a n i m perm i ssibl e m oti ve. See Wade, 50 4 U.S

. at18 5- 87.

B. T h e govern m en t w as n ot r eq u ir ed t o in form Bill i ngs oft he dif f i culty i n prov i ding substan t i al assi st ance. Bil l i ngs a lso cl ai m s the go ver nm ent had a du ty to in for m h im th at h is in c ar c er at ed st at u s w ou ld m ak e it harderf orhi m to co oper ate , wh i ch i n turn w oul d dim i ni sh th e ch an ce s th at he woul d b e th e be ne fi ci ary o fa s ubs ta nti ala ss i st an ce m otion. He r el i es o n o urde ci si o n i n Kin g, w here we hel d that i f a d efe nd ant i s “ not f ai rl y info rm ed o fthe c o ns eque nc es o fhi s dec i si o n t o plead gui l ty, a due proce ss vi ol ati on has o ccurr ed. ” 6 2 F
. 3d at 895.10 N o. 07

- 2307 We d o n o ts e e h o w Kin gbe n efit s B i l l i n gs , as t h at d ec isi on a l so sta tes that“the f ai l ure to i nfo rm [ the defendant] o fthe e ff ec t o f hi s i nc ar ce r at i o n i s no t th e ty pe o fc o ns ti tu
tional viol ation th at, und er Wade, w ou ld all ow us to re vi ew the pros ecuto r’ s deci si on notto fi l e the m oti on. ” Id. M or eo ve r, Kin ginv o l ve d a pl ea a g r ee m en t, wher e th e defe nd ant cl ai m ed that the g ove rnm ent a l l owed hi m to p lea d g u ilty w ith ou t in for m in g h im th at h e w as u n like ly to geta su b st an ti alas si sta nce r educti on be cause he was in c ar c er at ed

. Id. ; see also Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Vi l l ar e al , 49 1 F
. 3d 605, 61 0- 11 ( 6th Cir. 2 007). By co ntra st, Bi l l i ngs di d not entera ple a a gr eem ent (a nd he o nl y e nter ed a c oo perat i on agr eem en t a fterpl eadi ng g uil ty) , so he c annot cl ai m that the g ove rnm ent im proper l y ind uced him to pl ead gui l ty or br e a c h ed a p lea ag re em en t w ith h im
. C f. U nited Sta tes v. Wi l s on , 390 F.3d 100 3, 1004 ( 7th Cir. 2004). I t al so se ems f ar - f et ch ed th at Bi l l i ng s ha d no i nk l i ng tha th i s ab i l i t y t o a s s i s tthe g o v e r nme ntwo ul d d i mini sh o nc e he was i m pr i so ne d. Bi l l i ng s k ne w th atthe g o ve r nm ent had del aye d arr est i ng and jailing hi m i n hopes that he w ou ld coop er a t e, p resu m ably beca us e he w as a m ore val uabl e a sse t o n the str eetthan i n pri son. S o Bil l i ngs h ad so m e ide a th at in c ar c er at ion w ou ld d am p en h is ch an ce s o fr ec ei vinga s ubs ta nt i ala ss i st an ce mot i o n.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent i s A FFI RMED .
10- 8- 08