Opinion ID: 170945
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Government’s Evaluation

Text: Fontenot contends “[t]he district court erroneously interpreted the departure provisions in the sentencing guidelines to mean that it was required to give substantial weight to the government’s evaluation of Mr. Fontenot’s assistance in the [state] criminal case.” (Appellant’s Opening Br. at 10.) Fontenot also argues “the provision in the sentencing guidelines that states that the court should give substantial weight to the government’s evaluation does not apply to substantial assistance in a state prosecution because the government is in no better a position than defense counsel to evaluate the assistance provided.” (Id. at 7.) Fontenot is mistaken on both counts. Though the court stated it was “inclined to accept the government’s recommendation” and would “give[ ] substantial deference . . . to the Government’s evaluation,” we are not convinced it felt bound by the government’s request. (R. Vol. V at 15, 35.) We presume the the court’s determination of the extent of that departure reviewable.” Fontenot is not challenging the degree of departure. Instead, he claims the court committed legal errors in arriving at his sentence. We have jurisdiction to consider these claimed errors. See United States v. Sierra-Castillo, 405 F.3d 932, 937 (10th Cir. 2005) (appellate court has “authority to review legal error in the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines, even if those errors involve the interpretation of departure provisions”). -5- court was aware it had discretion to determine the degree of departure. See United States v. Sierra-Castillo, 405 F.3d 932, 936 (10th Cir. 2005) (“A district court is presumed to understand that it has discretion to downwardly depart unless the court unambiguously states that it lacks such discretion.). We are not persuaded the Sentencing Commission intended to treat assistance in federal and state prosecutions differently. The commentary to §5K1.1 provides: “Substantial weight should be given to the government’s evaluation of the extent of the defendant’s assistance, particularly where the extent and value of the assistance are difficult to ascertain.” USSG §5K1.1, comment. n.3. The annotation does not distinguish between state and federal prosecutions and Fontenot cites no case law or other authority supporting such a distinction. The court expressly stated the value of Fontenot’s assistance was difficult to ascertain: “Since this conviction resulted in a guilty plea, the Court has not had a full independent opportunity to make an evaluation of the matter.” (R. Vol. V at 35.) While the court could, in exercising its discretion, afford less weight to the government’s recommendation in a case with which it had little or no involvement, it is not required to do so.