Court Opinion

ID: 9931311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 19:01:56.389869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:06.712772
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10903    Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 02/08/2024   Page: 1 of 8

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10903
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       KENDRICK KENTRELL PATRICK,
       a.k.a. KP,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Alabama
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00123-TFM-B-4
USCA11 Case: 23-10903         Document: 27-1         Date Filed: 02/08/2024          Page: 2 of 8

       2                          Opinion of the Court                        23-10903

                                ____________________

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Kendrick Kentrell Patrick appeals his 292-month total
       sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine
       and crack cocaine and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
       On appeal, he argues that the district court abused its discretion
       when it denied his motion to require the government to disclose
       the reasons for its refusal to file a downward departure motion
       based on his substantial assistance. The government contends that
       the appellate waiver in his plea agreement covers this challenge and
       therefore prohibits the appeal. It also responds that the court
       properly denied Patrick’s motion. After careful review, we affirm
       the denial of Patrick’s motion without determining whether the
       appeal waiver applies. 1

       1 We decline to resolve whether the appeal waiver bars this appeal.       It’s not
       clear that Patrick’s challenge, related to the government’s obligations under
       the plea agreement, falls within the scope of the waiver. See, e.g., United States
       v. Puentes-Hurtado, 794 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 2015) (stating that appeal
       waivers do not apply to claims that the government breached the plea agree-
       ment). And even with a valid appeal waiver, we will still “review a sentence
       based on a constitutionally impermissible factor,” such as race or religion. King
       v. United States, 41 F.4th 1363, 1367 (11th Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted).
       Because that’s essentially the same standard Patrick must meet to obtain relief
       on his motion, see United States v. Dorsey, 554 F.3d 958, 961 (11th Cir. 2009)
       (judicial review is available where “the prosecution refused to file a substantial
USCA11 Case: 23-10903       Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 02/08/2024       Page: 3 of 8

       23-10903                 Opinion of the Court                            3

                                           I.
              In May 2019, a federal grand jury returned a 42-count
       superseding indictment against Patrick and five codefendants.
       Patrick was charged with one count of conspiracy to possess with
       intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846,
       multiple counts of possession with intent to distribute, id.
       § 841(a)(1), and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm after
       a felony conviction, id. § 922(g)(1). In August 2019, Patrick pled
       guilty to the conspiracy and gun counts under a written agreement
       with the government.
             In the plea agreement, Patrick accepted terms relating to
       cooperation with the government and sentence-reduction motions
       under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and Rule 35, Fed. R. Crim. P. The
       government agreed to move for a downward departure under
       § 5K1.1 or Rule 35 if Patrick “provide[d] full, complete, truthful and
       substantial cooperation to the United States, which results in
       substantial assistance to the United States in the investigation or
       prosecution of another criminal offense.”
              But notably, the plea agreement made clear that the decision
       whether Patrick’s cooperation amounted to substantial assistance
       was “specifically reserved by the United States in the exercise of its
       sole discretion.” The agreement also warned Patrick that, if he
       “provide[d] untruthful information . . . , fail[e]d to disclose material

       assistance motion because of a constitutionally impermissible motivation”),
       we’ll get straight to the point and address the merits of the motion.
USCA11 Case: 23-10903      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 02/08/2024     Page: 4 of 8

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10903

       facts . . . , or commit[ted] a new criminal offense, the United States
       will not make a motion for downward departure.” Lastly, the plea
       agreement included a provision waiving Patrick’s direct appellate
       rights unless certain narrow exceptions applied.
              Patrick cooperated with the government for multiple years,
       including as a government trial witness, and his sentencing was
       repeatedly postponed as a result. But in November 2022, the
       government notified Patrick that it would not be filing a § 5K1.1
       motion for his benefit because he had breached the plea agreement
       by engaging in criminal conduct while incarcerated at the Conecuh
       County Jail.
               In March 2023, just before sentencing was set to go forward,
       Patrick filed a motion requesting an order directing the United
       States to produce the information “upon which [it] relies in its
       refusal to file a 5K motion.” Defense counsel advised that, while
       the government had provided a “verbal outline of allegations,” it
       had refused to provide any documentation to substantiate the
       allegations, which Patrick denied. Counsel asserted that the
       government’s refusal to file a 5K motion was “wholly based on
       false information and thorough investigation would show this.”
              The government responded in opposition to Patrick’s
       motion for disclosure. It noted that Patrick did not claim that the
       government breached the plea agreement or acted in bad faith and
       that he cited no authority for the remedy he sought. The
       government stated that it did not intend to introduce at sentencing
       or to the court any information Patrick sought in his motion and
USCA11 Case: 23-10903     Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 02/08/2024    Page: 5 of 8

       23-10903               Opinion of the Court                        5

       that, to the extent privilege did not cover the information, the
       government declined to produce it. The government further
       contended that it was simply exercising its discretion as appropriate
       under both Patrick’s plea agreement and federal law, and that
       Patrick had not presented a basis for judicial review.
              At sentencing, the district court heard argument from the
       parties and then denied the motion to compel the government to
       substantiate its refusal to file a 5K motion. Patrick’s attorney
       stressed that he lacked the information to effectively challenge the
       government’s position, and that he believed the government was
       relying on erroneous information. The government responded
       that Patrick had not “provided any legal basis on which to require
       that the government disclose that type of information at this stage
       of the proceedings.” The court stated that, after reviewing the plea
       agreement and relevant case law, it did not see a constitutional
       basis for granting Patrick’s motion because it was within the
       government’s discretion not to file a § 5K motion.
              Without a reduction for substantial assistance, the district
       court calculated a guideline range of 360 months to life
       imprisonment based on a total offense level of 39 and a criminal
       history of IV. Citing a new Department of Justice policy, the
       government asked for a sentence of 292 months, at the low end of
       the guideline range (292 to 365 months) that would have applied if
       the crack cocaine in the case had been treated as powder cocaine.
       Patrick personally addressed the court, suggesting that the warden
       of the Conecuh County Jail had falsely accused him of assault. The
USCA11 Case: 23-10903        Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 02/08/2024        Page: 6 of 8

       6                        Opinion of the Court                     23-10903

       court sentenced Patrick to a total term of 292 months in prison,
       stating that it would have imposed the same sentence even if
       Patrick had received a 5K departure. Patrick now appeals the
       denial of his motion for discovery relating to the government’s
       decision not to file a 5K motion. He does not otherwise appeal his
       sentence.
                                            II.
              We typically review de novo whether the district court may
       compel the government to make a substantial-assistance motion.
       United States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492, 1498 (11th Cir. 1993). We
       review the denial of a motion to order discovery for an abuse of
       discretion. United States v. Cuya, 964 F.3d 969, 970 (11th Cir. 2020).
                                           III.
              Under § 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, the district
       court “may depart from the guidelines” “upon motion of the
       government stating that the defendant has provided substantial
       assistance.” U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. This provision “gives the
       Government a power, not a duty, to file a motion when a
       defendant has substantially assisted.” Wade v. United States, 504
       U.S. 181, 185 (1992). And courts generally are “are precluded from
       intruding into prosecutorial discretion.” Forney, 9 F.3d at 1501.
            Of course, the prosecutor’s discretion when exercising that
       power is subject to constitutional limitations. 2 Id. According to

       2 The government’s discretion may also be subject to contractual limitations.
       But beyond asserting that the government owed a duty of good faith and fair
USCA11 Case: 23-10903        Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 02/08/2024        Page: 7 of 8

       23-10903                 Opinion of the Court                              7

       Wade, federal courts may review the government’s refusal to file a
       substantial-assistance motion if the “refusal was based on an
       unconstitutional motive,” such as race or religion, or “was not
       rationally related to any legitimate Government end.” 504 U.S. at
       185–86.
              But judicial inquiry is warranted only if a defendant makes a
       “substantial threshold showing” of an unconstitutional motive.
       Wade, 504 U.S. at 186–87; Forney, 9 F.3d at 1502. “A claim that a
       defendant merely provided substantial assistance will not entitle a
       defendant to a remedy or even to discovery or an evidentiary
       hearing. Nor would additional but generalized allegations of
       improper motive.” Wade, 504 U.S. at 186; see United States v. Dorsey,
       554 F.3d 958, 961 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A defendant who merely claims
       to have provided substantial assistance or who makes only
       generalized allegations of an improper motive is not entitled to a
       remedy or to even an evidentiary hearing.”).
              Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
       denying Patrick’s motion for discovery. The government was not
       under a duty to file a § 5K motion on Patrick’s behalf, and it was
       free to utilize prosecutorial discretion in making that decision.
       Patrick did not allege that the government based its refusal on an

       dealing under the plea agreement, Patrick does not argue that the agreement
       limited the government’s discretion to file a 5K motion or that the
       government otherwise violated the plea agreement. So he has abandoned any
       argument along those lines. And as a result, judicial review of the
       government’s refusal to file a substantial-assistance motion is controlled by
       Wade and “not general contract principles.” Forney, 9 F.3d at 1500 n.3.
USCA11 Case: 23-10903      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 02/08/2024     Page: 8 of 8

       8                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10903

       unconstitutional motive, so he was not entitled to have the district
       court review the government’s decision, even assuming he
       otherwise provided substantial assistance. See United States v. Nealy,
       232 F.3d 825, 831 (11th Cir. 2000) (rejecting the view that “the
       government cannot refuse to file a substantial-assistance motion
       for reasons other than the nature of defendant’s substantial
       assistance.” (cleaned up)). While Patrick alleged that the
       government’s decision might have been based on false
       information, which he contends would not serve a legitimate
       government end, he simply speculates to that effect. And that falls
       short of making the type of “substantial threshold showing” of
       improper motive that would warrant discovery or an evidentiary
       hearing. See Wade, 504 U.S. at 186. Thus, we affirm.
              AFFIRMED.