## 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 0- 35 23

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

* 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 Eas te rn
* Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. Leo n Nas h, * * [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Octo be r 17 , 20 11 Fi le d: Octo be r 24 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , LOKE N and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.

Leo n Nas h ap pe al s th e di st ric t c o u rt’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n to co m pe l th e 1

go ve rn m en t to se ek a do wnwar d se nt en ci ng de pa rtu re, s u p p l e ment al m ot io n to

co m pe l, an d m ot io n fo r di sc ov ery. W e affi rm

.

Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 35 (b ) (1 ) al lo ws a co ur t, up on th e go ve rn m en t’s ti m el y m ot io n, to red uc e a se nt en ce whe n th e de fen d a n t pr ov id es in fo rm at io n th at su bs ta nt ia ll y ass is ts th e g ov ern m en t in in ve st ig at in g or pro se cu ti ng

The Hon or ab le Bi ll y Ro y W il so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.an ot he r pe rs on

. N a s h pl ed gu il ty, pu rs ua nt to a pl ea ag reem en t, to co ns pi racy to

di st rib ut e fif

ty gr am s or m or e of co cai ne ba se in vi ol at i o n o f 2 1 U.S.C. §§ 8 4 1 ( b ) (1 )(A)(i ii ) an d 84 6, al l in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 37 1. In Nas h ’s p l e a ag reem en t, th e go ve rn m en t ag reed to m ov e fo r a do wnwar d de pa rtu re in ex ch an ge fo r Nas h co op erat in g in a cas e ag ai ns t And re Sai n an d po te nt ia ll y ot he rs

. The go ve rn m en t di d no t m ov e fo r a do wnwar d de pa rtu re. Nas h arg ue s th e go ve rn m en t act ed arb it rari ly

an d ha st il y be cau se he fu lfi ll ed hi s ob li ga ti on s un de r th e pl ea ag reem en t by pr ov id in g

us efu l i nf or m at io n re ga rd in g S ai n.

The di st r i c t c o u r t de ni ed Nas h’s m ot io ns , fin di ng Nas h fai le d to m ak e a

su bs ta nt ia l sh owi ng th a t t h e g o v e rn m en t was m ot iv at ed by an im pr op er pu rp os e. It f ou nd th e go ve rn m en t pr ov id ed an acce pt ab le reas on , na m el y , th e pl ea ag r e e men t

co op erat io n was no t li m it ed to Sai n, an d Nas h fai le d to co op erat e fu ll y whe n he
pr ov id ed in fo rm at io n ab ou t a m an na m ed Carl Ro ss th at co nf li ct ed wit h Nas h’s gr an d jury test im on y

.

Afte r rev ie win g th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, se e Uni te d St at es v. Dav is
, 5 8 3 F

. 3d 10 81 , 1 09 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t
ap pl ie d th e pr op er le ga l st an da rd an d di d no t cl earl y err in de te rm in in g Nas h fai le d to mak e a su bs ta nt ia l th res ho ld sh owi ng of ei th er an un co ns ti tu ti on al m ot iv e by th e go ve rn m en t or no le gi ti m at e go ve rn m en ta l reas on fo r it s de ci si on

. See Co ot er & Gell

v. Hart m arx Co rp ., 49 6 U.S. 38 4, 40 5 (1 99 0) (s ta ti ng a di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n by ba si ng it s ho ld in g on “ an erro ne ou s v i e w o f th e la w or on a cl earl y

erro ne ou s as se ss m en t of th e ev id en ce”) ; se e al so W ad e v. Uni te d St at es , 50 4 U.S. 18 1, 18 5- 86 (19 92 ) (ex pl ai ni ng a di st ric t co ur t m ay on ly com pe l t he go ve rn m en t t o fi le a

m ot io n fo r a do wnwar d de pa rtu re or al lo w di sc ov ery co nc ern in g th e go ve rn m en t’s fai lu r e t o d o s o if th e de fen da nt m ak es a su bs ta nt ia l th res ho ld sh owi ng “ th at th e refu sa l w a s b a s e d on an un co ns ti tu ti on al m ot iv e” or “ no t rat io na ll y rel at ed to a le gi ti m at e” gove rn m en ta l pu rp os e (fo ot no te om it te d) ). The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s d is cret io n, an d we a ffi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ -2

-