United States v. Amos Deering, Sr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15280
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Amos Deering pleaded guilty to being a felon/unlawful user/domestic abuser in possession of a firearm, possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
- After pleading guilty, Deering signed a cooperation agreement and provided substantial assistance; the government filed a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion.
- The district court designated Deering a career offender, producing an advisory guidelines range of 262–327 months.
- The government recommended a 20% reduction ‘‘off the top’’ of the guidelines range; Deering argued any § 5K1.1 reduction should be taken from the bottom because his criminal history was overstated.
- The court applied a 20% reduction to the top of the range, yielding a 261-month sentence; Deering appealed, challenging (1) the court’s § 5K1.1 methodology, (2) an alleged government breach of the cooperation agreement, and (3) substantive unreasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 5K1.1 reduction must be calculated from the bottom of the guidelines range | Deering: § 5K1.1 departure must start at the bottom, otherwise not a true "departure" outside the range | Government/District Court: § 5K1.1 permits court-determined reduction; court may apply reduction to top based on § 3553(a) considerations | Court: No error—§ 5K1.1 authorizes reductions that may leave sentence within advisory range; court properly applied 20% off the top |
| Whether the government breached the cooperation agreement by recommending departure off the top | Deering: Agreement promised the government would seek departure below the guidelines bottom | Government: Agreement gave prosecutorial discretion; government may advise court of unrelated factors and recommend how reduction should be applied | Court: No plain error—government acted within its discretion and properly addressed aggravating factors |
| Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable given alleged overstated criminal history | Deering: Court failed to give sufficient weight to overstated criminal history as mitigating; should have varied downward more | Government/District Court: Court weighed § 3553(a) factors, emphasizing aggravated conduct and criminal history | Court: No abuse of discretion—the below-range sentence (261 mo) was reasonable and court adequately explained its weighing |
| Reviewability of extent of downward departure | Deering: Extent should be reviewable because result remained essentially within guidelines | Government: Extent of departure not reviewable absent unconstitutional motive | Court: Extent not reviewable here; district court’s discretion controls absent unconstitutional motive |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 536 F.3d 874 (8th Cir.) (extent of downward departure not reviewable absent unconstitutional motive)
- United States v. Rublee, 655 F.3d 835 (8th Cir.) (same principle on reviewability)
- United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681 (8th Cir.) (approving application of § 5K1.1 reduction that remained within advisory range)
- United States v. Anzalone, 148 F.3d 940 (8th Cir.) (government may inform sentencing court of unrelated factors that should limit departure relief)
- United States v. Floyd, 499 F.3d 308 (3d Cir.) (procedurally distinguishable decision relied upon by defendant)
- United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374 (8th Cir.) (district court has wide latitude weighing § 3553(a) factors)