United States v. Travis Bare
692 F. App'x 105
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Travis Layden Bare pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine under a written plea agreement and was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum of 60 months.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief on appeal raising multiple issues; Bare did not file a pro se supplemental brief.
- Prior state convictions (2009 concealed weapon misdemeanor and felony meth possession; 2010 misdemeanor defrauding drug/alcohol screening) were scored for criminal history at sentencing; probation for 2009 convictions was revoked at the 2010 sentencing.
- The Government did not file an 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) substantial-assistance motion, and Bare was ineligible for the safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
- On appeal Bare raised (1) prosecutorial policy and due-process challenge to charging decisions, (2) alleged erroneous criminal-history scoring, (3) claims that the Government breached the plea by not moving for a below-mandatory sentence for substantial assistance and that the court should have compelled such a motion, and (4) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to initiate a debriefing with the government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial policy / due process: DOJ guidance discouraged charging quantities that trigger mandatory minimums | Bare: DOJ policy created a right or entitlement not to be charged in a way that triggers mandatory minimums | Gov: Policy statements do not create individual rights; prosecutors may charge as they see fit absent constitutional/statutory constraint | Rejected — policy statements do not confer enforceable rights; no constitutional or statutory requirement to avoid mandatory-minimum charges |
| Criminal-history scoring (2009/2010 convictions) | Bare: convictions were consolidated; he should have received fewer criminal-history points, reducing guideline range | Gov: District court’s scoring stands; and any error is harmless because sentence was statutory minimum | Rejected as prejudicial error — even if scoring was erroneous, Bare cannot show substantial rights affected because he received the lowest possible 60-month sentence regardless of guideline range |
| Substantial-assistance / breach: failure to move under § 3553(e) | Bare: Gov. breached plea by not moving for a below-mandatory sentence; court should compel motion | Gov: No promise to move; prosecutorial charging/declination to move is generally discretionary and not subject to court compulsion absent unconstitutional motive | Rejected — no obligation in plea to move; court cannot compel Gov. to make motion absent unconstitutional motive |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to arrange debriefing before grand jury target letter | Bare: counsel’s inaction prevented securing credit for assistance | Gov: Record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance on direct appeal | Not decided on merits — claim not conclusively shown on record; proper vehicle is § 2255 if Bare seeks relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural framework for counsel’s withdrawal and appellate review when no meritorious claims exist)
- United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979) (government policy statements do not create judicially enforceable rights)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review standard)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (showing a sentence under an incorrect Guidelines range ordinarily establishes effect on substantial rights)
- Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 (1992) (court cannot compel the Government to file a substantial-assistance motion)
- United States v. Allen, 450 F.3d 565 (4th Cir. 2006) (discusses limits on court’s power to reduce below statutory minimum absent Government motion; safety-valve ineligibility implications)
- United States v. Snow, 234 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2000) (prosecutorial refusal to move for downward departure is generally unreviewable absent an obligation or unconstitutional motive)
- United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2010) (ineffective-assistance claims are generally resolved on § 2255 unless the record conclusively shows ineffectiveness)