UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4778

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SARAH BETH MECKLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:15-cr-00049-IMK-MJA-1)

Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: June 17, 2016

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

L. Richard Walker, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Clarksburg, 

West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United 

States Attorney, Andrew R. Cogar, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sarah Beth Meckley pled guilty to arson of a building used 

in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) 

(2012). The district court sentenced her to a 60-month prison 

term, the statutory mandatory minimum. On appeal, Meckley 

challenges her sentence, arguing that the Government engaged in 

prosecutorial misconduct when it failed to move for a 

substantial assistance downward departure under U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1, p.s. (2015). We affirm.

Meckley contends that she provided substantial assistance 

to the Government, warranting a Government motion for a downward 

departure on her behalf. Meckley’s plea agreement contained no 

promise by the Government to make a substantial assistance 

motion. 

In the absence of a Government motion for a substantial 

assistance downward departure, a court may review the 

prosecutor’s decision not to move for a departure only if the 

refusal is based on an unconstitutional motive, such as race or 

religion, or is not rationally related to a permissible 

government objective. United States v. LeRose, 219 F.3d 335, 

342 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 

185-86 (1992)). Before the court may inquire into the 

Government’s reasons for refusing to file the motion, a 
3

defendant must make a “substantial threshold showing” of 

impropriety. Id. (citing Wade, 504 U.S. at 186). 

In an attempt to make this “substantial threshold showing” 

of impropriety, Meckley detailed her efforts at cooperation and 

explained the extent of her assistance. However, 

“[e]xplanations of the extent of a defendant’s assistance” are 

insufficient to meet the burden of making a substantial 

threshold showing of impropriety. LeRose, 219 F.3d at 342-43 

(citing Wade, 504 U.S. at 187). Likewise, “[m]ere allegations 

of unconstitutional motives” are insufficient to meet this 

threshold showing. Id. at 342 (citing United States v. Wallace, 

22 F.3d 84, 87 (4th Cir. 1994)). 

Meckley argues that her assistance was similar to, if not 

greater than, assistance provided by other persons who were 

given the benefit of a substantial assistance motion. Thus, she 

asserts that this raises an inference of improper motive. 

However, this speculation based on comparisons with other 

defendants is not a basis for showing improper motive. “Wade

does not mandate a game of comparisons.” Rather, an “allegation 

of disparate treatment” is “legally irrelevant” to the 

determination of whether the refusal to move for a substantial 

assistance departure amounts to prosecutorial misconduct. 

United States v. Butler, 272 F.3d 683, 687 (4th Cir. 2001) 

(citing LeRose, 219 F.3d at 342-43). 
4

Because Meckley has failed to make a substantial threshold 

showing of impropriety in the prosecutor’s decision not to move 

for a departure, the district court properly declined to review 

the basis for the prosecutor’s decision. Accordingly, we 

affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED