Opinion ID: 2977900
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. Adams’s arguments

Text: Mr. Adams argues that the government breached its agreement with him in three respects: (1) by using the information he provided “against him,” (2) by not moving for a sentence reduction based on his substantial assistance to the government, and (3) by not advising the court of the extent of his cooperation. We address these arguments separately below. a. Use of information provided by Mr. Adams “against him” Mr. Adams notes that AUSA Ward told him at both the beginning and at the conclusion of their September 2006 interview that Ward was going to file a motion for a downward departure in Mr. Adams’s sentence based upon his “substantial assistance.” According to Mr. Adams, Ward’s -10- USA v. Adams Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725 assurances amounted to “a promise not to use anything [Mr. Adams] said against him,” assurances that he allegedly relied on to his detriment. Mr. Adams’s assertion that Ward’s comments somehow estopped the government from later requesting the sentence that it did is unfounded. Ward simply stated that, as of the September 2006 interview, he intended to seek a sentence reduction based on Mr. Adams’s substantial assistance; he never promised that Mr. Adams’s future lies to investigators would not cause Ward to change his mind. Moreover, there is no proof that Mr. Adams relied to his detriment on Ward’s comments. Rather than immediately telling the whole truth to the investigators, Mr. Adams continued to change his story so as to lead them astray. Mr. Adams’s plea agreement provided in relevant part: If, in the opinion of the United States, the defendant renders substantial assistance within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), the United States will file a motion pursuant to one or both of these provisions. The defendant acknowledges that, under the terms of this Plea Agreement, [the] United States retains complete discretion in determining whether a departure motion will be filed . . . . Because the totality of the evidence indicated that Mr. Adams, rather than providing substantial assistance, actually impeded the investigation with his repeated lies, the government was well within its discretion to decline to seek a downward departure and instead to seek an enhancement for obstruction of justice. b. Not moving for a downward departure based on substantial assistance -11- USA v. Adams Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725 Mr. Adams next argues that the government improperly refused to move for a sentence reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. That section of the Guidelines provides in pertinent part as follows: Upon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense, the court may depart from the guidelines. Id. Under Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992), however, this court may not consider such an argument absent a showing that the government’s refusal to file the motion was based on an unconstitutional motive. “[A]lthough a showing of assistance is a necessary condition for relief, it is not a sufficient one.” Id. at 187. The essence of Mr. Adams’s argument is that once AUSA Ward stated his intent to file a departure motion, the government no longer retained any discretion in the matter, but “was obligated to file a departure motion unless the defendant breached the Plea Agreement.” Even if we accepted this claim for the sake of argument, however, Mr. Adams repeatedly breached the plea agreement because he did not “cooperate fully, truthfully, and completely.” Mr. Adams’s breaches of the plea agreement thus relieved the government of any obligation to move for a downward departure. Because the government’s decision was clearly not based on an unconstitutional motive, such as Mr. Adams’s race or religion, his argument on this issue is without merit. c. Failure to inform the court of the nature of Mr. Adams’s cooperation Finally, Mr. Adams makes the unsupported argument that the government breached his plea agreement by failing to advise the district court of the “nature, extent, and value” of his cooperation. -12- USA v. Adams Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725 But the record indicates that the court was fully aware of the extent of Mr. Adams’s “assistance” to the investigators. Because Mr. Adams does not identify what information the government could have presented that was not already before the court, his argument on this point fails.