### 2002 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-25-2002 

# U S A v . M e y e r

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 1-2281

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2002 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. 

### R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . M ey e r " (2002). 2002 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 43. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002/43NON- PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 01-2281

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RICHARD P. MEYER,

Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(Dist. Court No. 01-cr-18) District Court Judge: Alan N. Bloch

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a ) January 14, 2002

Before: ALITO and ROTH, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZ ER, Senior District Judge.

(Opinion Filed: January 25, 2002 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM: Because we write for the benefit of the p arties, the background of the appeal is not set out. We reject defendant's argument that the D istrict Court erred when itdeclined to depart downward from the applicable sen tence range after the

government filed a motion pursuant to Section 5K1.1 of the Sen tencing Guidelines. Section 5K1.1 states (emphasis added): "Upon motion of the govern ment stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigatio n and prosecution of another person who has committed the offense, the court may depart fro m the guidelines." The decision whether to depart downward lies in the discretion o f the District Court, and we do not have jurisdiction to review an appeal challenging a District Court's discretionary refusal to depart downward from an appropriate Sentencing G uidelines' range. See, e.g., United States v. Casiano, 113 F.3d 420, 429 (3d Cir. 1997) ; United States v. Spiropoulos, 976 F.2d 155, 162-63 (3d Cir. 1992). The record is clear that the District Cou rt gave substantial consideration to the motion to allow a downward departure, recognize d its authority to depart downward, and exercised its discretion to decline to depart f rom the appropriate range provided by the Sentencing Guidelines. We thus conclude that t he District Court's denial was discretionary, and appellate jurisdiction is theref ore lacking. We also reject defendant's argument that the District Court used information in violation of the immunity granted by the plea agreement and in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The information the Distri ct Court used came from the plea agreement and there is nothing to show that it came from his immunized testimony at trial. Moreover the plea agreement referred to Sec tion 1B1.8 of the Sentencing Guidelines and Section 1B1.8(b)(5) permits the use of information provided pursuant to a cooperation agreement in determining whether and to what extent a downward departure is warranted. Accordingly, defendant's appeal is d ismissed.

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:

Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.Circuit Jud ge