United States v. Quinton Spinks
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20666
4th Cir.2014Background
- Spinks pleaded guilty (2008) to conspiracy to distribute cocaine; an § 851 information triggered a 240‑month statutory minimum.
- The government moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) for a downward departure for substantial assistance; district court granted a 30% reduction to 168 months.
- After Simmons, one predicate no longer qualified; resentencing reduced the mandatory minimum to 120 months.
- Government again moved under § 3553(e) for a 30% reduction; the court granted only that reduction (to 84 months) and declined to consider Spinks’ post‑conviction rehabilitation or other § 3553(a) factors to increase the departure.
- Spinks appealed, arguing the court should have considered non‑assistance sentencing factors in setting the extent of the § 3553(e) reduction; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may consider non‑assistance (§ 3553(a)) factors when determining the extent of a below‑mandatory‑minimum departure under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) | Spinks: court should consider post‑sentencing rehabilitation and other § 3553(a) factors in setting how large the § 3553(e) reduction should be | Government: § 3553(e) authorizes departures only to reflect substantial assistance; extent must be based solely on assistance and factors related to it | The Fourth Circuit: affirmed Hood — extent of a § 3553(e) departure may be based only on substantial assistance and factors related to that assistance; non‑assistance § 3553(a) factors are not permissible here |
| Whether United States v. Davis or Pepper v. United States overrules or alters Hood’s rule | Spinks: Davis (Rule 35(b) context) and Pepper (post‑sentencing rehabilitation) support considering non‑assistance factors under § 3553(e) | Government: Davis involved Rule 35(b) not § 3553(e); Pepper concerns guideline variances, not statutory minima | Held: Davis is distinguishable (Rule 35(b) motion); Pepper governs guideline variances, not departures from statutory mandatory minima; Hood remains controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009) (extent of a § 3553(e) departure limited to substantial assistance and related factors)
- United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 190 (4th Cir. 2012) (district court may consider non‑assistance factors in determining extent of a Rule 35(b) reduction)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (post‑sentencing rehabilitation may support a variance from the advisory Guidelines range)
- United States v. Grant, 636 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 2011) (circuit precedent agreeing that non‑assistance factors cannot be used to set extent of § 3553(e) reductions)