2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-25-2002

USA v. Meyer

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 1-2281

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Meyer" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 43.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/43
 NON-PRECEDENTIAL 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 SCHWARZER, Senior District 

Judge. 

 

 (Opinion Filed: January 25, 2002 ) 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT 

PER CURIAM: 

 Because we write for the benefit of the parties, the background 

of the appeal 

is not set out. 

 We reject defendant's argument that the District Court erred 

when it 
declined to depart downward from the applicable sentence range after the 

government 

filed a motion pursuant to Section 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. 

Section 5K1.1 

states (emphasis added): "Upon motion of the government stating that the 

defendant has 

provided substantial assistance in the investigation and prosecution of 

another person who 

has committed the offense, the court may depart from the guidelines." The 

decision 

whether to depart downward lies in the discretion of 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 Guidelines' 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 Court gave substantial 

consideration to 

the motion to allow a downward departure, recognized its authority to 

depart downward, 

and exercised its discretion to decline to depart from the appropriate 

range provided by 

the Sentencing Guidelines. We thus conclude that the District Court's 

denial was 

discretionary, and appellate jurisdiction is therefore 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 District 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 Section 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 dismissed. 

 

 

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT: 

Kindly file the foregoing Opinion. 

 

 

 
 Circuit Judge