United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1420

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Scott Michael Dornseif, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Appeals from the United States

District Court for the

No. 97-1421 District of Minnesota.

___________

 [UNPUBLISHED]

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Kelly Jean Knorr, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 24, 1997

Filed: December 5, 1997

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, LOKEN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
The HONORABLE DAVID S. DOTY, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Minnesota.

-2-

___________

PER CURIAM.

Scott Michael Dornseif and Kelly Jean Knorr were charged in a multi-count indictment

with methamphetamine trafficking and money laundering. Each pleaded guilty to

conspiring to distribute over two hundred grams of methamphetamine, and the remaining

counts were dismissed. At their sentencings, the district court granted the government’s 1

downward departure motions because of the substantial assistance Dornseif and Knorr

provided in the investigation and prosecution of others. Dornseif and Knorr appeal the

resulting sentences. We affirm.

Mr. Dornseif was subject to a mandatory minimum five-year sentence. The government

filed a motion for downward departure from the Guidelines sentencing range under

U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, but did not move for a departure from the applicable mandatory

minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). At sentencing, counsel for Dornseif, the

Assistant U.S. Attorney, and a case agent advised that Dornseif had provided an unusually

high level of assistance in investigating and prosecuting others. In determining the

applicable Guidelines range, the district court rejected the probation officer’s

recommendation of a two-level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), found

that Dornseif is a career offender under § 4B1.1, and found that his Guidelines range is

therefore 188-235 months in prison. Turning to the question of downward departure, the

court granted the government’s substantial assistance motion and sentenced Dornseif to

120 months in prison and five years of supervised release.

Ms. Knorr was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence but became eligible for the

mandatory minimum “circuit breaker” found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) andU.S.S.G. § 5C1.2

when the government did not pursue an arguable § 2D1.1(b)(1)
-3-

enhancement. At sentencing, the district court found that Knorr is eligible for circuit

breaker relief, found that her applicable Guidelines range is 30-37 months in prison, and

granted the government’s motion for downward departure under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and

U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. The court then imposed a sentence of 35 months in prison and five

years of supervised release, explaining that a sentence of that length was needed so that

Knorr may complete the Bureau of Prison’s comprehensive drug treatment program for

her serious drug abuse problem.

On appeal, Dornseif argues that the district court erred when it granted the government’s

substantial assistance motion but then imposed a sentence without discussing the

departure factors listed in U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 or giving reasons for the specific departure

sentence imposed. Knorr argues that the district court erred when it granted her motion

for downward departure but sentenced her near the top of the applicable Guidelines range.

However, the extent of a district court’s downward departure for substantial assistance

is not reviewable on appeal in this circuit. As in United States v. McCarthy, 97 F.3d

1562, 1577 (8th Cir. 1996), “[w]e decline the invitation to further circumscribe the district

court’s discretion by requiring it to examine each of the listed factors in § 5K1.1,” or, in

Knorr’s case, by requiring the court to parse out and explain the manner in which it has

granted overlapping circuit breaker and substantial assistance relief.

Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.