United States v. Tate
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 853
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Tate and Young were indicted on unlawful distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base; Tate faced two counts, one on May 6, 2008 and another on May 14, 2008.
- Tate pleaded guilty to a single count; Young pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the mandatory minimum with supervised release.
- Plea proffers alleged crack/powder disparity and drug quantities; Tate’s and Young’s conduct involved multiple sales and extensive communications with a codefendant.
- At sentencing, the district court acknowledged the 2007 crack guideline amendment and asked whether the disparity was around 20 to 1; the court stated it was in the neighborhood of 20 to 1.
- Counsel for Tate argued for a non-guideline sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Spears, but the court imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 100 months, citing Tate’s recidivism and escalation in criminal conduct.
- Young challenged safety-valve eligibility, contending no debriefing was required; the district court required some form of information sharing with the government to qualify for safety-valve relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of error under Rule 51 and plain-error review | Tate preserved error by informing court of disparity issue | Government contends errors raised on appeal, not preserved | Preservation adequate; some issues reviewed for abuse of discretion; others de novo. |
| Whether district court erred about crack/powder disparity as applied | Disparity 60–80 to 1; not 20 to 1; court erred legally | Court acknowledged 2007 amendment and used within-Guidelines range | No legal error; within-Guidelines sentence upheld. |
| Authority to impose non-guideline sentence based on policy disagreement with disparity | Court could vary below guidelines due to disparity concerns | Discretion limited by criminal history and lack of sufficient basis to depart | No abuse of discretion; departing below guidelines not warranted. |
| Future change in crack guideline as basis for sentence | Court assumed future retroactive amendment would allow resentencing | Reason grounded in Tate’s alarming background, not reliance on future amendment | Court's assumption did not render error; sentence affirmed. |
| Whether Young was eligible for safety-valve based on debriefing requirement | DEbriefing not strictly required; information sharing sufficient | Debriefing required for safety-valve eligibility | Safety-valve denial affirmed; no reversible error in court's analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wilson, 605 F.3d 985 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (preservation of claims under Rule 51; contemporaneous objections unnecessary otherwise)
- Rashad, 396 F.3d 398 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (contemporary objections; preserve error by informing court of ruling sought)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for within-Guidelines sentencing)
- Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court 2009) (recognition of district court discretion to vary from Guidelines under § 3553(a))
- United States v. Pickett, 475 F.3d 1347 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (legal standard for reviewing guidelines calculations and departures)
- United States v. Recla, 560 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2009) (rearview considerations on safety-valve and Rule 35 timing; not controlling here)
- United States v. Gutierrez-Maldonado, 328 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 2003) (limits of safety-valve disclosure sufficiency)
- United States v. Miran —Santiago, 96 F.3d 517 (1st Cir. 1996) (safety-valve requires truthful disclosure, not mere self-serving statements)
- United States v. Montanez, 82 F.3d 520 (1st Cir. 1996) (debriefing considerations in safety-valve context)
- United States v. Beltran-Ortiz, 91 F.3d 665 (4th Cir. 1996) (debriefing not strictly required for safety-valve consideration)