United States v. Mayo Barnes
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19213
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Barnes pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams of methamphetamine and received the 10‑year mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii).
- The plea agreement reserved to the United States Attorney the sole, nonreviewable discretion whether to file a § 5K1.1 motion for downward departure based on substantial assistance.
- At the guilty plea hearing, counsel discussed the possibility of a safety‑valve reduction under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 (not § 5K1.1); the government said it could not decide until the presentence report and criminal history were known.
- At sentencing, the government declined to move for a § 5K1.1 departure; the court found Barnes ineligible for the safety valve because he had five criminal history points.
- Barnes appealed, arguing (1) the government breached the plea agreement by failing to seek a § 5K1.1 departure (or misled him at plea), and (2) he should benefit from an August 12, 2013 Attorney General memorandum limiting mandatory minimum charges.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the breach claim for plain error and rejected the AG‑memo claim as nonretroactive and non‑confering of rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government breached the plea agreement by not filing a § 5K1.1 motion | Barnes: plea was induced by discussions promising support for downward departure; government effectively promised to move for § 5K1.1 | Gov.: plea expressly reserved sole, nonreviewable discretion to file § 5K1.1; only safety‑valve was discussed at plea | No breach; no plain error — government retained discretion and did not promise a § 5K1.1 motion |
| Whether the Government misled Barnes at plea about willingness to seek downward departure | Barnes: government representation at plea induced guilty plea | Gov.: told court discussions concerned safety valve only and could not commit before PSR/criminal history | No; record shows discussions concerned safety valve, not a commitment to § 5K1.1 |
| Whether the court could grant a § 5K1.1 reduction absent gov't motion | Barnes: seeks relief based on substantial assistance theory | Gov.: only government can move for § 5K1.1; court lacks authority without motion | Affirmed that court lacks authority to grant § 5K1.1 reduction absent government motion |
| Whether AG’s August 12, 2013 memorandum retroactively reduces Barnes’s sentence | Barnes: memo should afford sentencing relief | Gov.: memo is policy guidance, nonretroactive, does not confer rights | Memo does not afford relief; not applicable or conferring rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (promise by prosecutor that induced plea must be fulfilled)
- United States v. Pizzolato, 655 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2011) (interpret plea terms by defendant’s reasonable understanding; apply contract principles)
- United States v. Gracia‑Cantu, 302 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2002) (plain‑error review standard for unpreserved sentencing claims)
- United States v. Cong Van Pham, 722 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2013) (safety‑valve requires full disclosure but not usefulness of information)
- United States v. Price, 95 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 1996) (government can bargain away § 5K1.1 discretion only where plea agreement requires it to file motion)