United States v. Winebarger
2011 WL 6445136
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Winebarger, a felon in possession of a firearm, cooperated with the government after pleading guilty in 2009.
- Probation determined he was an armed career criminal under ACCA, yielding a 180-month mandatory minimum and a Guidelines range of 135–168 months.
- The district court adopted career-offender status but treated §3553(e) as authorizing below-minimum sentencing based on cooperation, though the government’s motion was filed under seal.
- The district court referenced §5K1.1 factors to evaluate substantial assistance and noted other personal-history factors in Winebarger’s life.
- Winebarger received a sentence of time served (about 1 month 3 days) plus five years of supervised release; the government later claimed its recommendation below the minimum was not properly filed, prompting a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion and appeal.
- The Third Circuit vacated and remanded, holding §3553(e) does not permit non-assistance factors to justify a below-minimum sentence and reaffirmed the limited scope of the departure under §5K1.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3553(e) allows below-minimum sentences based on non-assistance factors. | Winebarger; government argues broad discretion. | Winebarger contends only assistance-related factors may justify departure. | No; non-assistance factors cannot justify below-minimum sentence. |
| How §3553(e) interacts with §5K1.1 when determining the extent of the departure. | Court should follow §5K1.1 factors for extent of departure. | Judgment should reflect only assistance-related considerations. | Departure extent must reflect assistance factors; non-assistance factors cannot broaden below-minimum relief. |
| Whether Casiano permits considering non-assistance factors to limit a departure. | Casiano allows non-assistance factors to limit extent of departure. | Casiano does not permit extending departure beyond assistance-based grounds. | Casiano permits limiting, not expanding, departures; still limited to assistance-related grounds. |
| Whether the district court complied with the statutory text and case law in applying §3553(e). | Court properly applied the statute to reflect cooperation. | Court relied on non-assistance factors in fashioning sentence. | Procedural and substantive errors; sentence vacated. |
| Whether the government’s later-filed Rule 35 motion cured any error. | N/A | N/A | Not necessary to resolve; the error required vacatur and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kellum v. United States, 356 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2004) (limits statutory minimum departures to narrow §3553(e) authority)
- Johnson v. United States, 580 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2009) (minimums constrained; §3553(e) authority narrow)
- Torres v. United States, 251 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 2001) (guidelines-based framework for §5K1.1 departures)
- Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120 (1996) (limits district court discretion under §3553(e) with §5K1.1 guidance)
- Casiano v. United States, 113 F.3d 420 (3d Cir. 1997) (limits on departures; factors relate to cooperation; not an invitation to extend beyond cooperation)