# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 A rgued J une 9, 20 09 Deci ded J une 15, 20 09 B efo re W IL L IA M J. B A U E R, Cir cu i tJudg e R IC H A R D A . PO SN E R, Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e
N o. 08
- 2674 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A , P la intif f-A pp ellee,
v. R O B E R T B L UNT S O N, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant . A p p eal from the U nited States D istri ct C ou rt f orthe CentralDis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s. N o. 07
- 3007 0- 001 J eanne E. S cot t, Judge. O R D E R A fte r h is a rre stfor p os se ss ion of cr ac k w ith int en t t o d ist rib u te , Ro b er t B lu n ts on to ld the g ove rnm ent that he w anted to co oper ate i n exchange f orthe possibi l i ty ofa l ower se nt en ce . He si g ne d a n a g r ee m en t an d m eto nc e wi thi nv es ti g at o r s, b utthe g o ve r nm en t soo n l earned that he was w or ki ng o n an e scape pla n and tr yi ng to ar ra nge the m urder of hi s co defe nd ant. The g ove rnm ent b ro ke offco ntact and, not surpri si ngl y, di d not fi l e a substa nti al

- ass i sta nce m oti on. At sent enci ng Bl untson a rgued that the go ver nm ent had acte d i n bad f ai th bynotm oving f ora re du ced se ntence; the dist ri ct c ourtr ej ecte d that co nt en ti o n a nd s en te nc ed Bl unt so n t o 2 0 y ea r s’ i m pr i so nm en t—the mandat o r y min i m um given th e am ou nt of crac k and a prior dru g con viction us ed f or enh an cem en t. W e affirm NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 2674 Page 2

th e jud gm en t. I n M ay 2007Bl untson a nd co defe nd ant An toine J acks on were ar re ste d after author i ti es caught them with 1 52 gr am s o fcr ack i n thei r car . In hi s ini ti alpost - ar re st i nt er vi ew o n May 17, 2 00 7, Bl unt so n de ni ed an y kno wl edg e o fthe c r ac k, b uti n a s ec o nd i nter vi ew l ate r that day, he a dm i tte d to posse ssing cr ack w i th i ntent to dist ribute a nd ga ve a deta i l ed acco unt ofthe offense. On J une 6, 20 07, Bl untson a nd J acks on were each i nd i cted on o ne co unt ofposs ess i ng 50 gr am s o r m or e o fcr ack coca i ne. The ne xt day, J une 7, 20 07, Bl unt so n s i g ne d a “ co o per at i o n a g r ee m en t” wi ththe g o ve r nm en t, i n whi chthe g o ve r nm en t r es er ve d f o ri ts el fthe s o l e di sc r et i o n t o de ci de whethe r, a nd t o whate xt en t, t o r ec o m m en d a r educed sentence d i fBl untson pro vi ded subst anti alas si sta nce. I m m edi ate l y a fter ex ec u tin g th e a gr ee m en t, B lu n ts on d eb rie fed au th or itie s o n illega l d ru g a c tiv ity in C h ica go . Bu t a s f aras the re cor d show s, go ver nm ent a gents di d not t al k t o Bluntso n aga i n afterthat date. A l m ostei ght m onths l ate r, o n Feb ruar y 1 , 20 08, the gov er nm ent fi l ed an en h an c em en t in for m at ion, see 21 U
. S. C. § 8 51, gi vi ng Bl untson no ti ce that i t would s eeka m andator y l i fe s entence o n the basi s o fhi s tw o pri orfel ony drug co nvi cti ons. The par ti es th ene ng ag ed i n pl eane g o ti at i o ns , a nd o n F eb r ua r y 2 8, 2 00 8, the g o ve r nm en t amende d the enhancem ent info rm ati on t o re m ove r efer ence to one oftho se convi cti ons i n exchange f or Bl unt so n’ s g ui l typl ea . Bl unt so n un der st o o d tha t th e del et i o n o fo ne o fthe c o nv i ct i o ns m ea n t t h at h e fa c ed a m an d at or y m in im u m se n te n c e o f 20 ye ar s in st ea d of life, see 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 )
. In th e mo n th s f o l l o wi n gB l u n t s o n ’ s g u i l t y p l e a , h i s d e fe n s e c o u n s e lwr o t e t wo l e t t e r s t o the g o v e r nme nto ffe r i ngfur the rc o o pe r a t i o n. In o ne l e t t e rde fe ns e c o un s e ls t a t e d, “I h av e e x p lain ed to M r. B lu n ts on th at you h av e o ffer ed n o a ss u ra n c es of filing a 5K 1.1 l et te ra nd he unde r st an ds, b uts ti l lwi sh es t o c o o per at e i n h o pes o fr ec ei vings ucha departure
. ” There i s no ev i dence thatanyo ne fro m the gov er nm ent r esponded to thos e l ett er s. Se n te n c in g w as se t fo r Ju n e 2 00 8. T h e g ov er n m en t d id n otfile a su b st an tia las si st an ce mot i o n, whi chpr o m pte d Bl unt so n t o fi l e a se nt en cingmem o r an dum a r g ui ng th at h is c oo p er at ion sh ou ld ge t h im a se n te n c e b elo w th e m an d at or y m in im u m . See 18 U. S
. C. § 3 55 3( e) ; U. S
. S
. G. § 5 K1. 1. Bl unt so n ins i st ed th athe ha d g i ve n a n “ ho ne sta nd det ai l ed ac co unt ” o fthe e ve nt s l ea di ngup to hi s ar r es t, ha d na m ed va r i o us Chi ca g o g an g m em bers involved i n il legal d rug ac tivity, and had “m ad e nu m erou s attem p ts to m ore acti vel y a ssi st the a uthor i ti es. ” H e a l so ass er ted thathi s a ssi sta nce t o the a uthor i ti es pla ced hi s f am i l y a nd fri ends at ri sk. Defense counselco nceded, how eve r, thatBl untson’ s e ff or ts t o c o nt a c tthe g o v e r nme nta ft e rthe deb r i e fi ngo n J un e 7, 2 0 0 7, h a d b e e n i g no r e d. I n re sponse, the pros ecuto r sta ted thatag ents had not be en “e age r to re - i nter vi ewN o. 08
- 2674 Page 3

the defendant aga i n” gi ven that he had l i ed to them “o n m or e than one occa si on, co m bi ned w ith th e o th er circ u m st an c es of th e c as e (t h e d efe n d an t’s at te m p ts to ob st ru c t jus tic e, h is cri m i nalhi sto ry, et c. )
. ” The pros ecuto r’ s o nl y e xam ple o fBl untson l yi ng to autho ri ti es, how eve r, was the f al se sto ryhe g ave to ar re sting o ffi cer s o n M ay 17 shor tl y a fterhi s a rr est and hours bef or e he deci ded to co m e cl ean about the e vents l eadi ng up to hi s a rr est . That l i e, o fco urse , was known to the go ver nm ent b ef or e i t inv ited Bl untson’ s co oper ati on by si gni ng an agr eem ent with hi m o n J une 7, 20 07, and pres um abl y the go ver nm ent a l so knew abou t his crim inal history by that da te. Th us the p ost-arrest false statem en t and Blu nt son ’s c rim in al h ist or y w ou ld ap p ea r to be p re te x tu al b as es for re fu sin g t o file a su b st an tia lassistan ce m otion. On the oth er han d , the p rosecu tor cited tw o exa m p les ofBlu nt son ’s at te m pts t o o bs tructj us ti ce . F i r st, o n J une 6 , 2 00 7—the da y b efo r e Bl unt so n s i g ne d the c o o pe r a t i o n a g r e e men t
— a n i nma t e a tthe j a i lwh e r e Blun t s o n wa s de t a i ne d h a d t o l d a gu ar d th at B lu n ts on h ad offe re d h im $2 3,0 00 to kill co d efe n d an t Ja c ks on if Jac ks on w ou ld not tak e r esponsibi l i ty f oral lo fthe cra ck re cove re d. Thi s info rm ati on fro m the i nm ate , To ny Har o l d, a ppar en tly ha d no t r ea ch ed fede r ala utho r i ti es b efo r e Bl unt so n s i g ne d the coo perat i on a gr eem ent a nd was debri efed by federa lag ents. Then, o n J une 14, 20 07, M auri ce All en, ano theri nm ate atthe j ai l, to l d author i ti es that Bluntso n had thre ate ned to “h av e so m eo ne do s o m ethi ng ” to J ac k so n. The proba ti on o ffi cerwh o prepar ed the prese ntence i nvest i gat i on r epor t ca l cul ate d a t o t a lo ffe ns e l e v e lo f2 9 a nd a c r i mi na lh i s t o r yc a t e g o r y o fV, wh i c h wo ul d h a v e y i e l de d a gu idelines im p risonm en t range of 140 to 175 m ont hs i f not f or the 20-year m an d atory m in im u m . A t s en te n c in g B lu n ts on ’s o n ly ob j ec tio n w as th at th e g ov er n m en t h ad ac te d in bad f ai th byr efusi ng to m ove f ora sente nce be l ow the m andator y m i ni m um . The di str i ct cour t g ave the defense an o pp or tuni ty to prese nt ev i dence, but defe nse c ounselst ate d that he would st and on hi s s entencing m em or andu m . The g ove rnm ent, i n contr ast, cal l ed M a ur i c e Al l e n. Al l e n e xp l a i ne d tha th e h a d o v e r he a r d B l un t s o n thr e a t e n tha t“ s o meb o dy w oul d do som ethi ng” t o J acks on. He al so tes ti fi ed that Bluntso n had planned a j ai lbr eak and perso nal l y o ffer ed hi m $2 , 500 to obt ai n a guard’ s uni f or m . Defense counselst i l lput on no e vi dence, and i nstea d si m plyacc used A l l en o fl yi ng and accuse d the g ove rnm ent o f wai tingunt i la fte rBl unt so n h ad pl ea ded g ui l tyb efo r e “wr i tingo ff ” an y po ss ibi l i tytha t he c ou ld as sis t in ve st iga to rs . The dis tr i ct c ourtf ound that the go ver nm ent’ s pri m ar y r eas ons f orr efusi ng to m ove f ora re du ced se ntence w er e Bl untson’ s threa t a gainst J acks on’ s l i fe a nd hi s a tte m pt to ge t a j ail er’s un iform to escap e. Th e cou rt exp lai ne d that Blu nt son ’s challenge to A ll en ’s cre dibi l i ty w as unim port ant be cause “apparently the Governm ent b el i eve d him with r es pec t to tho se . . . r athe rs er i o us i ss ue s. ” The c o ur t th enc o nc l ude d tha t th e g o ve r nm en t ha d no t ac te d i n b ad f ai thi n r efus i ngt o fi l e a su bs ta nt i al

- as si st an ce mot i o n. And wi th o ut that m oti on, the cour t co nti nued , a 20- yea r sente nce was m andator y.N o. 08
- 2674 Page 4

On a ppea lBl unt so n a r g ue s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n r efus i ngt o c o m pelthe g o v e r n me n tt o fi l e a s u b s t a n t i a l

- a s s i s t a n c e mo t i o n u n d e r§ 3 5 5 3 ( e ) a n d § 5 K1
. 1
. H e c on te n d s t h at th e g ov er n m en t a c te d in b ad fait h an d th at its d ec isio n w as n otrat ion ally r el at ed to a ny l eg i ti m at e g o ve r nm en t en d. Bl unt so n ins i st s th atthe t i m i ngo fthe gov er nm ent’ s r efusali s e vi dence ofbad f ai th and thatthe gov er nm ent b ase d i ts deci si on not to fi l e a subst anti al

- ass i sta nce m oti on o n i m propergr ounds. A lth ou gh th e g ov er n m en t g en er ally h as d isc re tio n to w ith h old a su b st an tia lass i sta nce m oti on, “federa ldi str i ct c ourt s hav e a uthor i ty to re vi ew a pros ecuto r' s r efusalto fi l e a subst anti al

- ass i sta nce m oti on a nd to gr ant a r em edy i ftheyfi nd thatthe re fusalwas base d on an unconst i tuti onalm oti ve” or“was notr ati onal l y r el ate d to any l egi ti m ate Gover nm ent e nd
. ” W a de v . U nited Sta tes , 504 U .S. 18 1, 18 5-8 6 (1 99 2); s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. M iller, 45 8 F
. 3d 603, 60 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. The b urden i s o n the defe nd ant, however, to m ake a “ su b st an tia l th re sh old sh ow in g” th at th e g ov er n m en t im p ro p er ly w ith h eld a su b st an tia las sis ta n c e m ot ion be for e h e c an rec eiv e a rem ed y. Se eW ade, 504 U .S. at 1 86 ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bil l i ngs , 546 F.3d 47 2, 47 5 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). B lu n ts on d id n otm ak e a su b st an tia l sh ow in g th at th e p ro se c u to r ac te d in b ad fait h
. I nd eed, the sequence ofev ents sugge sts thatthe gov er nm ent c ut o ffco ntact w i th Bl untson as so on as it lea rn ed th at h e w as n otac tin g c on sis te n tly w ith h is c om m itm en t t o c oo p er at e. The f ai re st re adingo fthe re cor d— a r eadi ng tha t Bl untson di d not t ryto di spelat se nt en cinga nd do es no t co nt r adi ctno w— i s th athe s i g ne d a n a g r ee m en t to c o o per at e atthe sam e t i m e he w as sol i ci ti ng hel p i n esc api ng fro m j ai land i n coe rcing J acks on t o ei therta ke th e wra p f o rb o tho fthe m o rb e k i l l ed. I t i s unc l ea r, b as ed o n the r ec o r d, whene xa ct l y the govern m en t learned that i nm ate H arold h ad com e forw ard on Jun e 6, 2007to report Bl unt so n’ s pr o m i se o f$ 23 , 00 0 to k i l lJ ac k so n. ButBlunt so n h as ne ve ra r g ue d tha t th e gov er nm ent s om ehow l earned ofthi s info rm ati on be f or e e nter i ng into the c oo perat i on ag re em en t t h e fo llow in g d ay . A n d sin c e in m at e A llen d id n otap p ro ac h au th or itie s u n til J une 14, 20 07, the gov er nm ent c er tainl y di d not l earn that Bluntso n had again thr eat ened J acks on’ s l i fe a nd was w or ki ng o n an e scape pla n unti latl eas t a week a fterthe J une 7 debri efi ng. Ther e i s no thi ng in the re cor d to sugge st that the g ove rnm ent had anyfurther con tact w ith B lun tson after l earn ing abou t his con tinu ing crim inal cond uc t, an d thu s the re i s no support f orBl untson’ s s ugges ti on that the go ver nm ent dece i ved hi m byco nti nuing to sol i ci t hi s hel p al lthe w hi l e know i ng tha t i t would notm ove f ora re du ced se ntence. I ti s a l s o u nc l e a r, b a s e d o n the r e c o r d, wh e n e xa c t l y Blun t s o n’ s thr e a t s a nd e s c a pe att em pt occ urr ed. I fhe c om m i tte d these acts befor e e xecuti ng the co oper ati on a gr eem ent, then, bynotdi scl osing hi s a cti ons du ring the debr i efi ng, he v i ol ate d his wri tte n prom i se to “pro vi de com ple te and truthful i nfo rm ati on” re gar ding hi s cr i m i nalco nd uct and not toN o. 08
- 2674 Page 5

“c on c ea l or m in im ize [h is] a c tio n s o r in vo lve m en t in an y off en se .” O n th e o th er h an d , i f Bl unt so n thr ea te ne d J ac k so n’ s l i fe an d a tt empte d t o e sc ape fr o m j ai la fte re xe cut i ngthe coo perat i on a gr eem ent, then he vi ol ate d his pro m i se “not to engag e in any cri m i nalact i vi ty ofany ki nd , ” which vo i ded the coo perat i on a gr eem ent a nd r el eas ed the gov er nm ent fro m a nyo b l i g a t i o n t o r e wa r d wh a t e v e ra s s i s t a nc e h e mi g hta l r e a dyh a v e p r o v i de d. T he re i s the w rinkle that th e pros ecu tor carelessly respon d ed to Blun tson ’s sente nci ng m em or andu m byci ti ng f acts thatsho uld notr eas onabl y hav e l ed to wi thho l di nga s ubs ta nt i al

- as si st an ce mot i o n, s i nc e th o se s ame f ac ts di d no t di ss ua de th e gov er nm ent fro m ag re ei ng to acc ept Bl untson’ s co oper ati on in the fi rs t pl ace. As note d pr ev i o us l y, Bl unt so n’ s po st - ar r es t f al se s ta te m en t was unque st i o nabl y kno wn to the govern m en t w he n th e pros ecu tor signed the coop eration agreem en t, an d i t w ou ld be h ard to i m agine thatthe pros ecuto r did notkno w the extent ofBl untson’ s cr i m i nalhi sto rya m onth a fterhi s a rr est . But atse ntenci ng the di str i ct c ourtwas car eful to base i ts fi nd i ng o f goo d fa i th o n Bluntso n’s thr eat s t o J acks on a nd hi s a tte m pt to es cape fro m j ai l
. That c on d u c t s u re ly ga ve th e g ov er n m en t a legit im at e b as is for w ith h old in g a su b st an tia las sis ta n c e m ot ion
. See U nited Sta tes v. P erez , 526 F.3d 11 35 , 113 9 (8 th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. B utler, 272 F.3d 68 3, 68 7 (4 th C ir. 20 01 ); U nite d States v. Hartwell, 30 2 F
. S up p. 2d 60 9, 62 0 (E .D . Va . 200 4). A ccor dingl y, we AF F I RM th e jud gm en t o f th e d ist ric t c ou rt .