Opinion ID: 7389
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sec. 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(e)

Text: 18 Section 5K1.1 can also be viewed as a policy statement addressing any other aspect of sentencing or sentence implementation. 28 U.S.C. 994(a)(2). We have previously analyzed the relationship among Sec. 5K1.1, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 994(n), and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(e). United States v. Beckett, 996 F.2d 70 (5th Cir.1993). Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(e) provides that: 19 Upon motion of the Government, the court shall have the authority to impose a sentence below a level established by statute as minimum sentence so as to reflect a defendant's substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense. Such sentence shall be imposed in accordance with the guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code. 20 Additionally, the commentary to Sec. 5K1.1 provides that: 21 Under circumstances set forth in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(e) and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 994(n), as amended, substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense may justify a sentence below a statutorily required minimum sentence. 22 U.S.S.G. Sec. 5K1.1, comment. n. 1. 23 The dispositive issue in Beckett was whether Sec. 3553(e) and Sec. 5K1.1 provide for separate and distinct methods of departure, or whether they are intended to perform the same function. Beckett, 996 F.2d at 72. We concluded that, [b]ased on a combined reading of [Sec. 5K1.1, Sec. 3553(e), and Sec. 994(n) ], ... there is a direct statutory relationship between Sec. 5K1.1 and Sec. 3553(e) of such a character as to make Sec. 5K1.1 the appropriate vehicle by which Sec. 3553(e) may be implemented. Thus, we held that the district court had the authority to depart below a statutory minimum sentence when the government filed a motion for downward departure pursuant to Sec. 5K1.1, but specifically did not invoke 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(e). 12 After Beckett, it is clear that, even if we were to assume ad arguendo that Sec. 5K1.1, standing on its own or in conjunction with Sec. 1B1.1(i), does not fulfill the statutory mandate of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 994(n), it nevertheless is not invalid because it implements the statutory mandate of Sec. 3553(e). In other words, because we have held that Sec. 5K1.1 is the appropriate vehicle to implement a statute, by definition, the Sentencing Commission did not exceed the authority given to it by Congress when it enacted Sec. 5K1.1. 13 In short, Sec. 5K1.1 is not an ultra vires act. See Black's Law Dictionary 1522 (6th ed. 1990) (Ultra vires is defined as [a]n act performed without any authority to act on subject.). 24 We recognize that the two provisions (Sec. 5K1.1 and Sec. 3553(e)) are not identical in that the former specifies departures below the guideline range and the latter specifies departures below the minimum statutory sentence. This appears to be a difference without distinction in that a downward departure from the guideline range necessarily is subsumed within a departure below the statutory minimum sentence, and this Court has held that Sec. 5K1.1 is sufficient to implement a departure from the statutory minimum sentence. Moreover, Beckett teaches that once the government files a motion for downward departure based on substantial assistance, the extent of the departure comes within the district court's discretion. See also United States v. Hernandez, 17 F.3d 78, 83 (5th Cir.1994) (Section 5K1.1 governs all departures from guideline sentencing for substantial assistance, and its scope includes departures from mandatory minimum sentences permitted by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(e).) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A finding that Sec. 5K1.1 is the appropriate vehicle to implement greater departures from the statutory minimum sentence, but not the lesser departures from the guideline range, would be contrary to the teachings in Beckett. Such a holding would ignore the pronouncement that the provisions be read together. Further, it would fly in the face of our conclusion that departures based on substantial assistance may not be compartmentalized. We conclude that Sec. 5K1.1 is the appropriate mechanism by which the departure contemplated in the two statutes may be implemented. 25 For the foregoing reasons, we must reject Underwood's claim that Sec. 5K1.1 is an ultra vires act by the Sentencing Commission. 14