## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 33 64

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e * Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

. Ant on io Am il car Vel as qu ez, al so * kn own as An to ni o Vel as qu ez * Maz ari eg os , als o k no wn as Po ny, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* Defen da nt - App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 6, 2 01 2 Fi le d: Apri l 2 5, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re BYE, BEAM, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
PER CURI AM.

A nton io Vela sq ue z pl eade d gui lty to co nspi ra cy to dis tr ibu te m et ha m phe ta m ine

an d was se nt en ced to 12 1 m on th s' im pr is on m en t. Afte r Vela sq ue z co op erat ed wit h la w en fo rcem en t, th e go ve rn m en t fil ed a Ru le 35 (b ) m ot io n to red uc e Vela sq u ez's

se nt en ce to 10 8 mo n t h s. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e go ve rn m en t's m ot io n an d 1
red uc ed Vela sq ue z's se n t en ce to 84 m on th s. Vela sq ue z ap pe al s th e red uc ti on ,

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard G. Kop f, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Nebr as ka

.co nt en di ng th e co ur t sh ou ld ha ve red uc ed hi s se nt en ce to 60 m on th s. W e di sm is s fo r

la ck of ju ris di ct io n.

Mo st typic al ly, whe n a de fen da nt ap pe al s th e ex te nt of a Ru le 35 (b ) se nt en ce

re d u c t i o n "h e m

us t es ta bl is h th at th e se nt en ce was im po se d 'in vi ol at io n of la w' to

co nf er ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on [.]" Uni te d St at es v. Ru bl ee, 65 5 F.3 d 83 5, 83 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 37 42 (a)( 1) ). Vela sq ue z co nt en ds th e di st ric t c o ur t im po se d a se nt en ce "i n vi ol at io n of la w" whe n it co ns id ered an un co nt es te d fact fro m hi s pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t ("P SR" ) th at Vela sq ue z cl ai m s was un rel at ed to th e va lu e of hi s ass is ta nc e—a fact in di cat in g Velas qu ez m ay ha ve ur ge d a po te nt ia l wit ne ss ag ai ns t h im

to m is co ns tru e fac ts if q ue st io ne d. We di sa gr ee.

Fi rs t, it is de ba ta bl e whe th er th is fact was un rel at ed to Vela sq ue z's as si st an ce si nc e it bo re up on hi s cred ib il it y an d us efu ln es s as a go ve rn m en t in fo rm an t. Seco nd
,
ev en as su m in g th e in ci de n t w a s un rel at ed
, as we ex pl ai ne d in Ru bl ee, a co ur t m ay

co ns id er fa ct or s u nr el at ed to th e de fen da nt 's s ub st an ti al ass is ta nc e whe n e xe rci si ng it s di sc ret io n to li m it a se nt en ce red uc ti on

. 65 5 F.3 d at 83 9 ("B ecau se th e co ur t ha d

au th or it y to li mit th e Ru le 35 (b ) red uc ti on

. . . ba se d on fact or s u n r e la te d to th e

su bs ta nt ia l as s i s t an ce [th e de fen da nt ] pr ov id ed
, hi s se nt en ce was no t im po se d 'in vi ol at io n of la w' ev en if ba se d on an un rel at ed fact or ."). Mo reo ve r, ev en if th e di st ric t

co ur t's refu sa l to de pa rt fu rth er was ba se d on co ns id erat io n of th is p o r t i on of Vela sq ue z's PSR— a po rti on to whi ch Vela squez fa ile d to ti m el y ob ject— su ch refu sa l di d no t am ou nt to an "u nc on st it ut io na l m ot iv e" war ran ti ng ou r rev ie w. See Uni te d St at es v. Sy ke s, 35 6 F.3 d 86 3
, 8 6 5 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 04 ) ("Ab se nt an un co ns ti tu ti on al

m ot iv e, th e ex te nt to whi ch a di st ric t co ur t ex erci se s it s d i s c r e t i on ary au th or it y to de pa rt do wnwar d [b as ed on a Ru le 35 (b ) m ot io n] is no t su bjec t to rev ie w."); se e al so W es t v. Uni te d St at es , 99 4 F.2 d 51 0, 51 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) ("As su m in g th at so m e of th e in fo rm at io n co nt ai ne d in th e PSR was fal se , a de fen da nt is no t de pr iv ed of du e
pr oc es s whe n se nt en ced on th e ba si s of su ch in fo rm at io n as lo ng as th e de fen da nt was affo rd ed an ad eq ua te op po rtu ni ty to ch al le ng e th e in fo rm at io n.” ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

-2

-m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Acco rd in gl y , we la ck juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er

Vela sq ue z's co nt en ti on th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by fai li ng to fu rth er red uc e hi s

se nt en ce.

W e d is m is s t he ap pe al for lac k o f juri sd ic ti on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-