Opinion ID: 788057
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Government's Motive in Refusing to Request a Downward Departure for Substantial Assistance

Text: 24 Morgan contends that the government's motives for declining to file a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion for substantial assistance were unconstitutional. Specifically, he claims that the government's demand for information concerning his wife's whereabouts —at a time when her capture would have left his children unattended— amounted to improper interference with the parent-child relationship. He further contends that the claim is not subject to the appeal waiver provision in the plea agreement because the claim is constitutionally based. 25 It is well-settled that, in the absence of a cooperation agreement, a court may not inquire into the government's failure to make a motion unless there is a substantial threshold showing of an unconstitutional motive, such as the race or religion of the defendant. Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992). Morgan failed to allege to the District Court that the government acted with an unconstitutional motive. Similarly, he has not demonstrated to us that his sentencing proceedings were infected by any such motive. Instead, he simply accuses the government of improperly interfering with his relationship with his children. But these generalized assertions fall well short of the required substantial threshold showing of an unconstitutional motive.