Opinion ID: 2749072
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The denial of the government’s motion to

Text: reduce Brown’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 was proper. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error.5 United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1279 (9th Cir. 2006). In rejecting the government’s § 5K1.1 motion, the district court properly exercised the “wide latitude” given by the Guidelines for “evaluating the significance and usefulness of the defendant’s assistance. . . .” United States v. Awad, 371 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court gave the “substantial weight” required by the Guidelines to the government’s evaluation of the defendant’s assistance. See U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 cmt. 3. But, the court also determined that any benefit to which Eddings was entitled under § 5K1.1 was offset by the aggravating nature of the § 3553(a) factors. Rather than granting the government’s § 5K1.1 motion, but then upwardly departing because of the § 3553(a) factors, the district court simply denied the § 5K.1.1 motion. This arrived 5 There is a long-standing intra-circuit split on whether the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts is reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Swank, 676 F.3d 919, 921–22 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Staten, 466 F.3d 708, 713 n.3 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing conflict dating to 1999). Because the result in this case is the same under either standard of review, we need not resolve the conflict here. UNITED STATES V. BROWN 13 at the same result and was not erroneous. U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 cmt. background; see also United States v. Tadio, 663 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011) (permitting consideration of the § 3553(a) factors in the context of a post-sentencing motion for a reduction for substantial assistance).