1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. Criminal No. 07-189-GZS 

DANIEL RILEY, 

 Defendant 

DECISION AND ORDER ON THE 

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE 

The government has filed a Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to Rule 35(b). Docket 

Item 667. The defendant Daniel Riley has responded asserting that the government’s motion 

was timely filed and that the court has jurisdiction over the matter. Docket Item 669. The Court 

held a conference of counsel in this matter on February 17, 2010. At that conference, counsel for 

Mr. Riley and the government agreed that the motion could be decided on the pleadings already 

filed. As explained herein, the Court now GRANTS the government’s Motion. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

On October 28, 2008, the defendant Daniel Riley was sentenced to 432 months. After the 

sentencing, counsel for Riley advised the government that Mr. Riley wished to cooperate with 

the government and testify at the trial of Edward and Elaine Brown, United States v. Edward and 

Elaine Brown, Cr. No. 09-30-GZS. Shortly thereafter, a Deputy U.S. Marshal and defense 

counsel traveled to the Bureau of Prisons facility in Indiana where Mr. Riley was being held and 

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 670 Filed 02/28/11 Page 1 of 4
2 

met with him for the purpose of determining whether he had new information which was not 

already known by the government. The government listed Mr. Riley on its Witness List in the 

Brown matter and had him transported to New Hampshire prior to the trial in the Brown matter. 

The government met with Mr. Riley and his counsel in June 2009. The government asserts that 

Mr. Riley was cooperative, was debriefed more than once and, made himself available to testify 

against Edward and Elaine Brown. Ultimately, the government chose not to call Mr. Riley as a 

witness at the trial of Edward and Elaine Brown in July 2009. Mr. Riley also offered to testify at 

the sentencing hearings of Edward and Elaine Brown, however, the government decided that Mr. 

Riley would not be called as a witness. Elaine Brown was sentenced on October 2, 2009 and 

Edward Brown was sentenced on January 11, 2010. 

DISCUSSION 

The government filed the instant Motion more than one year after Mr. Riley was 

sentenced. Although Mr. Riley offered his assistance within one year of his sentencing, the 

government explains that the Brown matter extended beyond the one year period and, thus, the 

extent of Mr. Riley’s offer of assistance could not be determined within the one year period. 

Specifically, because of the pendency of Edward Brown’s sentencing and the appeals of both 

Edward Brown and Elaine Brown, the government asserts that it could not know the full value of 

Mr. Riley’s cooperation within one year of his sentencing. Therefore, the government waited 

until the appeals of Edward and Elaine Brown were concluded before filing the Motion to 

Reduce Sentence. 

Rule 35(b) provides, in pertinent part: 

(b) Reducing a Sentence for Substantial Assistance. 

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 670 Filed 02/28/11 Page 2 of 4
3 

(1) Upon the government’s motion made within one year of sentencing, the court 

may reduce a sentence if the defendant, after sentencing, provided substantial 

assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person. 

(2) Later Motion. Upon the government's motion made more than one year after 

sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant's substantial 

assistance involved: 

* * * 

(B) information provided by the defendant to the government within one year of 

sentencing, but which did not become useful to the government until more than 

one year after sentencing. 

* * * 

The general purpose of Rule 35(b) is to encourage the defendant to expeditiously provide 

all known information to the government. The Advisory Committee Notes to the 2002 

amendments provide that “[t]he rule’s one-year restriction generally serves the important 

interests of finality and of creating an incentive for defendants to provide promptly what useful 

information they might have. Thus, the proposed amendment would not eliminate the one-year 

requirement as a generally operative element. But where the usefulness of the information is not 

reasonably apparent until a year or more after sentencing, no sound purpose is served by the 

current rule’s removal of any incentive to provide that information to the government one year or 

more after the sentence (or if previously provided, for the government to seek to reward the 

defendant) when its relevance and substantiality become evident.” The Advisory Committee 

Notes also state that “[b]y using the term ‘involves’ in Rule 35(b)(2) in describing the sort of 

information that may result in substantial assistance, the Committee recognizes that a court does 

not lose jurisdiction to consider a Rule 35(b)(2) motion simply because other information, not 

covered by any of the three provisions in Rule 35(b)(2), is presented in the motion.” See also

United States v. Morales, 52 F.3d 7, 8 (1st Cir. 1995). While this motion falls outside the oneCase 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 670 Filed 02/28/11 Page 3 of 4
4 

year timeframe in Rule 35(b)(1), the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to consider the 

government’s motion pursuant to Rule 35(b)(2)(B). 

The government has moved to reduce Mr. Riley’s 432-month sentence by 10% to 388.8 

months. Although Mr. Riley denied criminal liability and forced the government to convict him 

at trial, shortly after being convicted he offered himself as a witness against the Browns. 

Ultimately, Mr. Riley was not used as a witness; however, the government asserts that his offer 

of assistance was nevertheless valuable. Had Edward or Elaine Brown put on certain defenses at 

trial, or at their sentencing hearings, Mr. Riley was available to testify. If Mr. Riley had testified 

at the trial it would have been as a rebuttal witness. Moreover, he corroborated other information 

known to the government. To the best of the government’s knowledge, Mr. Riley was truthful 

and his cooperation was complete. Given the violent nature of the Browns and their supporters, 

Mr. Riley exposed himself to an increased risk of injury by offering himself as a government 

witness. 

Accordingly, the Government’s Motion to Reduce Sentence is GRANTED and the 

Defendant’s 432-month sentence is reduced to 388 months. 

/s/ George Z. Singal__________________ 

 United States District Judge 

Dated this 28th day of February, 2011 

Case 1:07-cr-00189-GZS Document 670 Filed 02/28/11 Page 4 of 4