United States v. Shawn Cathey
663 F. App'x 326
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Shawn Travis Cathey convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥50 grams methamphetamine, sentenced within the Guidelines to 360 months (Guidelines range 360–480 months).
- Government moved under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 for a downward departure based on Cathey’s substantial assistance; the district court stated Cathey provided substantial assistance and that he would be eligible for a below-Guidelines sentence.
- After argument and review of Cathey’s criminal history, the court explained that absent cooperation it would have sentenced at the top of the range (480 months), and that it reduced the sentence to the bottom of the range (360 months) to account for cooperation and § 3553(a) factors.
- Cathey objected, arguing the district court procedurally erred by failing to follow the three-step Malone process and by conflating the § 5K1.1 departure determination with § 3553(a) consideration.
- The Fifth Circuit treated the objection as preserved and reviewed the Guideline application de novo and facts for clear error, then analyzed Malone and Molina‑Martinez in assessing whether any procedural error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by conflating the § 5K1.1 departure determination with consideration of § 3553(a) factors when imposing sentence | Cathey: court erred by not first determining and imposing a § 5K1.1 departure amount, then separately applying § 3553(a); relied on Malone | Government/Court: court explicitly found substantial assistance, recognized authority to depart, and explained sentence reduction was to account for cooperation plus § 3553(a) factors | Fifth Circuit affirmed: even if procedure was imperfect, any error was harmless because the court unambiguously recognized authority to depart and the intended sentence was clear |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing review framework and requirement to calculate Guidelines range)
- United States v. Malone, 809 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 2015) (discussed procedural process for § 5K1.1 departures; portion relied on by parties remains unchanged)
- United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751 (5th Cir. 2008) (standard of review: Guidelines application de novo, factual findings for clear error)
- United States v. Hashimoto, 193 F.3d 840 (5th Cir. 1999) (harmlessness where court’s intent to depart was clear)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (addressed showing required on plain-error review when Guidelines calculation affects substantial rights)