United States v. Clawson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13360
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Clawson pleaded guilty to distribution of child pornography and admitted ADHD treatment with dextroamphetamine; court noted potential medication issues at sentencing.
- At sentencing, the advisory range was 324-405 months, but statutory max was 240 months; court variably sentenced to 96 months.
- The government indicated there could be a Rule 35(b) motion for substantial assistance based on cooperation and requested a delay in surrender to aid cooperation.
- Clawson submitted medical letters emphasizing need to continue ADHD medication; the BOP later indicated dextroamphetamine was not on its formulary but could be obtained non-formulary if necessary.
- The district court postponed the surrender date to resolve the medication issue and then, after further hearings, resentenced Clawson to one day in custody with extended supervised release.
- The government objected, arguing the court relied on non-cooperation factors; the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded for new proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Rule 35(b) factors | Government: Rule 35(b) must rest on substantial assistance only. | Clawson: Court may consider non-cooperation factors under Rule 35(b). | District court exceeded authority; Rule 35(b) must be based solely on substantial assistance. |
| Eighth Amendment as ground for relief | Government: cannot justify reduction on medical-treatment concerns. | Clawson: longer imprisonment would violate the Eighth Amendment absent proper treatment. | No Eighth Amendment violation justifies the reduction; constitutional grounds cannot support the Rule 35(b) grant. |
| Remand and reassignment | Government: remand should preserve proper consideration of cooperation. | Clawson: (same as above) not specified for remand specifics. | Vacate and remand for reconsideration by a new judge to avoid potential prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grant, 636 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 2011) (en banc: limits Rule 35(b) to substantial assistance considerations)
- United States v. Shelby, 584 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2009) (broad Rule 35(b) readings rejected)
- United States v. Doe, 351 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (earlier version allowed factors militating against reduction)
- United States v. Manella, 86 F.3d 201 (11th Cir. 1996) (same view on limitations of non-cooperation factors)
- Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1977) (treatment decisions are professional judgments)
- Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985) (disagreements over medical care do not raise § 1983 Eighth Amendment claims)
- Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2010) (disagreement with medical method alone not Eighth Amendment violation)
- Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2010) (affirmed limits of prison medical care challenges)
- Jackson v. Fair, 846 F.2d 811 (1st Cir. 1988) (right to medical care but not to override professional judgment)
- Poland v. United States, 562 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2009) (statutory interpretation in Rule 35(b) context)