2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
5-14-2003 

# U SA v . V i l l a r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t 02-2946

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . V i l l a r " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 555. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/555NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-2946

UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. RICARDO VI LLAR, a/ k/ a RI CHARD AGOS TO, a/k/ a ROBERTO VI LLAR, a/ k/ a EDWARD DELGADO, a/k/aMR. LOPEZ, a/k/a JOS E LU IS Ricardo Villar, Appellant

On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania D.C. C riminal No . 00-cr-0046 5-1 (Honorable Marvin Kat z)
Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

April 22, 2003 Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge *, A M BR O a nd W EIS , Circu it Judges (Fil ed: May 14, 2003)
*Judge Scirica began hi s term as Chief Judge on May 4, 2003.1 21 U .S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and 21 U.S.C . § 860(a). 2 OPINI ON OF THE COURT
SC IRI CA , Chief Judge
. In this se ntenc ing ap peal, R icardo Villar c onten ds the Distric t Cou rt erron eous ly declin ed to g rant him a dow nw ard d epartu re for coop eration with state au thorities, e ven in th e ab se nce of agov er nmen t mo ti on. We wil l a ffirm. I. Villar was arrested on August 25, 1998, by Phi ladel phia Poli ce Officers for possessi on of crack, heroin, cocaine, and drug paraphe rnali a. Foll owing his ar rest , Vill ar agree d to co oper ate w ith state a utho rities. Th e fed eral go vern men t took o ver the state prosecution of Vill ar. Vil lar agreed to cooper ate with the feder al la w enforcement officer s and was charged byinformation. But , on October 13, 2000, the day he was scheduled to plead gui lty to the f ederalcharges, Villar

fled. On September 6, 2001, he
was rearr ested and f

ound in posses sion of l arge amounts of crack, cocaine, and tools used in the manufac ture and di stribution of c rack. Vil lar pl eaded guil tyto a super seding indict ment chargi ng him with the crimes hecommitted on August 25, 1998, and drug crimes relat ed to his September 6, 2001, crac k and cocaine di stribution. 1 In his pl ea agreement, Villar

agreed that: “ any of hi s cooperation pri or to becomi ng a fugitive on or2 Upon the government’ s motion, the Dist rict Court dis missed Counts V and VII of the supersedi ng indict

ment at t he time of s entenci ng.

3 abou t Octo ber 1 3, 200 0, sha ll not be the ba sis of a dow nw ard d epartu re pu rsuan t to U.S .S.G
. 

### § 5K 1.1.” On July 11, 2 002 , the D istrict Co urt sen tence d V illar to 32 4 m onth s imp risonm ent, ten years s uper vised release , a $2,0 00 f ine, an d a $5 00 sp ecial as sessm ent. 2 Finding Villar’s coop eration not su bstan tial in light o f his f light, his c ontinu ation o f large -scale drug distribu tion up on re turning to Ph iladelp hia, an d his f ailure to contin ue to c oop erate following hi s rearrest

on September 6, 2001, thegovernment el ected not to fil e a motion pur sua nt to U.S .S.G
. 

### § 5K1.1. Villar did not challengethe government ’s deci sion. Inste ad, Vil lar argued that the Dis trict C our t sho uld dep art an ywa y, purs uan t to U .S.S .G. 

### § 5K 2.0, ba sed o n the to tality of the circum stances includ ing his coop eration. The D istrict Court rejected V illar’s argu men t, findin g that it h ad no discre tion to g rant a d ow nw ard d epartu re abs ent a government moti on. II. The D istrict Court properly denied V illar’s motion for a d own ward d eparture bas ed o n hi s “c oop erati on” wit h law enf orc em ent. U .S.S .G. 

### § 5K 1.1 pr ovid es that a
mo tion fo r a do wn wa rd de partur e bas ed on a def enda nt’s co oper ation m ay be m ade o nly4

by the government. The Distri ct Court l acks authority to grant such a depart

ure when the government has properlyrefused to filesuch a motion. Villar contends on appe al that the Dis tri ct Court ha d the authority t o depart, even in the absen ce of a g overnm ent motion under 

### § 5K1.1, based s olely on his cooper ation with state law enfo rcem ent au thorities. V illar claim s that 

### § 5K 1.1 ap plies on ly to cooperation with fe deral authori ties , not wit h state authori ties . He argues t hat
co op er ati on w ith sta te a ut ho riti es is g ov er ne d b y 

### § 5K2.0 and may be gr anted even without t he government’ s concurr ence. We rejecte d this argument i n United Stat es v. Love , 985 F.2 d 73 2 (3 d C ir. 19 93)
. We said “there is no i ndication in t he language of 

### § 5K1.1 or in t he accompanyi ng
com men tary that the C om missio n m eant to limit ‘assis tance to auth orities’ to a ssistanc e to federal authori ties .” Id. at 734 (emphasi s in ori ginal) . We also said “[t ]here i s no suggesti on that t

he offense [i nvesti gated or prosecuted] need be a federal offense or t

hat the inve sti gators need to be federal authori ties .” Id. at 735. We concluded that if the Sentenci ng Commission had intended to l imit the provi sion t o federaloffenses inv estig ated onl y by fed eral a uth oritie s it co uld hav e ex plici tly don e so . Id. ; s ee also United States v. Emery , 34 F.3d 9 11, 913 (9 th Cir. 1994 ). Villar asks us to rec onsider Love , rel yi ng on United Stat es v. Kaye , 140 F.3d 86 (2d C ir. 1998 ), in w hich a divide d cou rt held th at 

### § 5K 1.1 on ly govern s coo peratio n w ith federalauthori ties and that cooperation with s tateauthori ties was not contempl ated bythe3 Nonetheless , we find the Kaye rati onale probl ematic. 5 senten cing g uidelin es. V illar reco gnize s that Kaye is i nconsistent with Love and th at Love has n ot bee n ov erruled by this C ourt en banc . Th is is c orre ct. Love is bind ing o n this pan el. See IOP 9.1. 3 III. For the foregoing rea sons, we wil l affi rm the judgment of conviction and sentence.TO THE C LERK: Please fi le theforegoing opi nion.

/s/ Anthony J. Sciri ca Chief Judge DAT ED: May 14, 2003