NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0015n.06 Filed: January

8, 2008 No. 06-6448 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v.
KERRY L AMONT HO WARD, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EAS TER

N DI S TR I CT OF KENTUCKY

Be fore : SI L ER, MOORE, and GI L MAN, Circuit J udg es. SILE R , Ci rc uit

Judg e . K e rr

y L amont Howa rd app e a ls h is c onvic tio n f or c on sp ir a c y

to distribute coca ine base , arguing that the United States (“G overnme nt”) viol ated the ple a agree ment whe n i t ref

used to move for

a downwa

rd depa rture on the sentenc e under USSG § 5K1.1 (“5K motion”). For

the followingrea sons, we AF FI RM. BACK GR OUND In 2006, Ker

ry L amont Howar d (“H owar d”) e ntere d into a wr i t t en plea a g ree ment (the “Ag ree ment”) w ith the Governme nt, in which Howard admitt ed to selling c ocaine to an under cover informant on thre e occ asions. Under the t erms of the Agre ement, Howard pled g uilty to one count of conspira cy

to distribute cocaine base. T he Ag ree ment further provided that the G overnme nt would make a

5K motion if, in its discretion, it de termined that How ard pr ovided the Gove rnment with substantial assistance in the investig ation or prose cution of o t h ercrimes. The district courtNo. 06-6448

United States v. Howa

rd

- 2 - discussed the Ag ree ment and rig hts with Howard at his rear raig nment , afte r which H owar d pled g uil ty purs ua nt t o th e Agre e me nt. Subsequent to Howar d’s guilty plea, the G overnme nt alleg ed that Howa rd re fused to provide substantial a ssistance to the Gover nment. After reta ining ne w counse l, Howar d ag ree d to assist the Gover nment by testifying be fore a g rand jury . The Gove rnment, howe ver, r efuse d this off er, c iting
sever al source s and a G overnme nt-administered polygra p h indicating that Howar d had attempted to kill an informant in his c ase. Subseque ntly , Howar d filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleg ing that the Gover

nment denied him the opportunity to pr ovide substantial a ssistance pursua nt to the Ag ree ment. At Howar d’s sentenc ing he aring , the Government ref used t o file a 5K motion, and Howar d ag ain ar g ued that the Gove rnment bre ac h ed t he Ag ree ment. The district cour t denied Howa

rd’s motion to wit hdrawhis guilty plea a nd set aside the Ag ree ment. The c ourt noted that once Howar d fa ile d the po lyg ra

ph te st, the Go ve rnme nt ac te d with in i ts d isc re tio n in re fu sin g to a llo w H ow ard to testify , fea

ringthat he would not testify truthfully
. The dist rict cour t then sentenc ed Howa

rd to the Gu ide lin e min imum of

26 2 mo nth s. DI SCU SSIO N Th e dis tr ic t co urt ’s de te rm inatio n th a t th e Go ve rnme nt d id n ot v iol a te the Agre e me nt i s revie wed de novo. United States v. Villareal , 491 F.3d 605, 608 (6th Cir. 2007). There is no revie w fo r b a d f a ith ; r a the r, be c a

us e the Agre e me nt a llo ws the Go ve rnme nt t o e xer c ise dis cre tio n in decidingwhether

to file a 5K motion, revie w of the Government’s decision not to fil e a 5K motion is lim ited to an examination of t h e Government’s motives. Id. Unless the Gove rnment hadNo. 06-6448

United States v. Howa

rd

- 3 - unconstitutional motives, it may exercise complete discre tion. Id. (“B eca use [the defe ndant’s] plea
a g re e me nt e xplic itl y

g ra nts the g ov e rnme nt ‘ c omp le te dis c re tion’ to de te rm ine wh e the r i t sh ou ld move for a

substantial assistance de parture , we may revie w the g overnme nt’s refu s al o n ly for unconstitutional mot ives. ”). A s Howar d did not alleg e that the Gove rnment ac ted with any unconstitutional mot ive, the Gove rnment did not abuse its discre tion. Ho wa rd ’s relianc e on Un ite d S tates v . Lu k

se , 2 8 6 F
. 3 d

9 0 6 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) , is mi s p lace d. Although the plea a g ree ment in Luk seappea rs similar to the one her e, ther e ar e seve ral ke y distinctions between Luk

se and thi s case . In Luk

se , th e de fe nd ants pr ov ide d th e Go ve rnme nt w ith assistance and only

afte r re ce i v i n g t h e def

endants’ a ssistance did the Gove rnment dec ide that the defe ndants lacke d the cr edibility to testify at a tria l. Id. a t 9 0 9
. A d d it io n a ll y , in Luk se the plea
a g re e me nt bo un d the Go ve rnme nt to c e rt a in pa ra me te rs fo r de te rm ini ng wh e the r th e de fe nd ants provided substantial assistance
. Id. F ind ingthat th e Go ve rnme nt f a ile d to a c t w ith in t

ho se para meters and failed to prove that the defendants did not provide substantial assistance , we he ld that the Gover nment was bound by the plea a g ree ment and wa s require d to file 5K motions. Id. at 914. The Gove rnment wa s not simi larly bound here . Unlike the def endants in Luk

se , H ow ard

did
n o to f f e r an y a s s i s t an c e b e f

o r e th e G o v e r

n m e n t d e t e r

m i n e d th a t h e l a c k e d

th e c r e d i b i l i ty t o t e s t i f

y. Fur ther, the A g ree ment did not contain the same pa rame ters as the plea a g ree ment in Luk se . See id. at 912. Her e, the deter

mination of whether

Howar d provided substantial assistance was within the sole discre tion of the Gover nmen t
. As the Gove rnment dete rmined Howa rd did not rende r substantial ass istance, it did not abuse its discre tion in declining to file a 5K motion on Howard’ sNo. 06-6448

United States v. Howa

rd

- 4 - behalf , and the district cour

t properly denied How ard’ s motion to withdraw his plea and set aside the Agre e me nt. AFF I RMED.