United States v. Jaimie Pankow, 884 F.3d 785

Background

Jaimie Pankow pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; the PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 108–135 months.
The Government filed a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion for substantial assistance but made no specific numeric recommendation; it urged the court not to go below 120 months and emphasized parity with co-defendants.
Pankow argued for a much lower sentence (59 months), factoring time in state custody and a 24-month reduction for cooperation; the district judge sentenced her to 84 months.
At sentencing the judge said Pankow would "get credit for her cooperation," discussed her vulnerability and acceptance of responsibility, and later issued a written statement of reasons noting it would “further grant the government’s motion pursuant to § 5K1.1.”
On appeal Pankow argued procedural error: (1) the court failed to rule on the § 5K1.1 motion at sentencing in compliance with Rule 32(i)(3)(B); (2) the court failed to explain how much of the below-Guidelines reduction was attributable to the § 5K1.1 departure versus other § 3553(a) factors.
The Seventh Circuit reviewed for plain error (finding Pankow forfeited rather than waived) and affirmed, holding the record showed the court granted the § 5K1.1 motion and adequately explained its sentence without needing to calculate a separate numeric departure.

Issues

Issue	Pankow's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the district court ruled on the § 5K1.1 motion at sentencing	Court did not expressly rule on the motion at the hearing; thus meaningful review is impossible	The court effectively ruled ("credit for her cooperation") and the written statement of reasons expressly granted the § 5K1.1 motion	Court: No plain error; the hearing plus written statement show the motion was granted
Whether the court had to specify the numeric amount of reduction for the § 5K1.1 departure	Court erred by not specifying how much of the sentence reduction was for substantial assistance vs. other § 3553(a) factors	Post-Booker, courts need not calculate traditional departures separately; it suffices that the court considered the § 5K1.1 motion and § 3553(a) factors	Court: No plain error; district court adequately considered assistance and other factors and need not compute a separate departure amount
Whether the court conflated substantial assistance with acceptance of responsibility	Court blurred the distinction and failed to treat § 5K1.1 and acceptance separately	The court addressed both: acceptance reduced the Guidelines range; substantial assistance produced a further reduction	Court: No plain error; record shows both adjustments were considered distinctly
Whether the court addressed credit for time in state custody	Court failed to state whether Pankow received credit for 13 months in state custody	District court considered the time and said the sentence would be close to the low end of the Guidelines; credit discretionary and not required where custody was pretrial	Court: No plain error; district court considered and granted discretionary credit; not obligated to award full credit under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3

Key Cases Cited

Setser v. United States, [citation="566 U.S. 231"] (2012) (addressing execution and concurrency of federal sentences)
Peugh v. United States, [citation="569 U.S. 530"] (2013) (Guidelines as starting point; individualized assessment required)
United States v. Booker, [citation="543 U.S. 220"] (2005) (rendering the Guidelines advisory)
Gall v. United States, [citation="552 U.S. 38"] (2007) (district court must adequately explain chosen sentence and consider § 3553(a))
Rita v. United States, [citation="551 U.S. 338"] (2007) (court must address arguments presented at sentencing)
Olano v. United States, [citation="507 U.S. 725"] (1993) (standard for plain-error review)
United States v. Brown, [citation="732 F.3d 781"] (7th Cir. 2013) (post-Booker: courts must calculate range and impose reasonable sentence; departures need not be separately computed)
United States v. Maxfield, [citation="812 F.3d 1127"] (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming that calculation of traditional departures is no longer required)
United States v. Johnson, [citation="427 F.3d 423"] (7th Cir. 2005) (discussing decline of formal departure framework post-Booker)