United States v. Jackie Lee
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16319
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Lee cooperated in a large Guam methamphetamine distribution network led by Ichihara and pleaded guilty to Count III (conspiracy to distribute) and Count X (forfeiture) in exchange for dropping Count II and government's promise of substantial assistance.
- Lee provided substantial assistance over three years, with sentencing delayed to reflect ongoing cooperation; government and court documented its significance.
- At sentencing, the district court treated Lee as if she admitted transporting > three kilograms of ice at 80% purity, elevating base offense level to 38, though testing data showed below 80% purity in samples.
- The district court initially granted a 10-level § 5K1.1 substantial assistance departure but later reduced it to 7 levels after discussions, and imposed a 96-month sentence within a constructed Guidelines range.
- The district court did not start with the Guidelines as the baseline, instead crafting a range to accommodate the preferred 96-month sentence, creating an improper procedure.
- The district court also failed to determine a revised mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), making it impossible to assess whether 96 months complied with the revised minimum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court start with the Guidelines properly? | Lee | Lee | Yes; court erred by not starting with Guidelines and tailoring range to fit preferred sentence. |
| Was the base offense level correctly calculated regarding purity/ice? | Lee | Lee | No; court improperly treated plea as admitting 80% purity, increasing base level to 38. |
| Was a revised minimum under § 3553(e) determined as required? | Lee | Lee | No; court failed to determine a revised minimum, preventing review of substantiveness. |
| Did the departure under § 5K1.1 improperly create an artificial Guidelines range? | Lee | Lee | Yes; court effectively crafted a range to justify a 96-month sentence outside a proper starting range. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jackson, 467 F.3d 834 (3d Cir. 2006) (guide on variance after proper Guidelines calculation)
- United States v. Thomas, 355 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2004) (purity/quantity distinctions in plea-related arguments)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is starting point)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court 2007) (G.W. discretion to vary within advisory Guidelines)
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (Supreme Court 2011) (Guidelines as starting point in sentencing analysis)