United States v. Hawn, No. 10–2098 (6th Cir. Jan. 11, 2012) (not for publication).
Panel of Judges Daughtrey, Cole, and Rogers.
United States v. Traxler, No. 10-1792 (6th Cir. Jan. 18, 2012) (not for publication).
Panel of Judges Kennedy, Martin, and Stranch.
Government appealed in both cases. Both defendants qualified for the ACCA 15-year mand min. Gov had released both defendants’ mand mins b/c of substantial assistance under 18 USC 3553(e).
Hawn got a year and a day. Traxler got five years.
The district court in Hawn disagreed with the government’s contention that any downward departure had to be based only on substantial assistance. The district court found it could vary based on the 3553(a) factors.
The Hawn Court found that:
* The district court should have started its analysis of a potential downward departure from the mand min, not the otherwise applicable GL range (here, the applicable range was less than the mand min, so the mand min should have become the range).
* The district court should not have departed based on the 3553(a) factors " without mentioning whether or how these factors related to or gave context to [the] substantial assistance."
* The district court had "the limited authority to impose a sentence below the minimum to reflect [the defendant’s] substantial assistance." The Court cited United States v. Bullard, 390 F.3d 413 (6th Cir. 2004), and United States v. Grant, 636 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 2011). The Court found that Grant applies in the 3553(e) context as well.
The Court vacated the sentence.
The Court also made some notes for resentencing:
* The district court has only the authority to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum based on the defendant’s substantial assistance.
* BUT the district court has "broad discretion" to consider a number of "contextual factors" to evaluate the value of the defendant’s assistance, the extent of the downward departure.
* The district court is not bound by the government’s recommendation of a two-level downward departure. Can give a greater or lesser departure. But the value of the assistance is the "governing principle." Any reduction should not exceed the value of the assistance.
The Traxler Court found that:
* The gov had not objected at sentencing, so plain-error review applied.
* Bullard applied.
* Interplay between the government’s downward-departure motion and the defense’s motion for a variance was confusing and the district court did not address how it reached its sentence, so remand was justified.
As in Hawn, the Court vacated the sentence.
Judge Stranch dissented:
* Found the sentence resulted from two separate motions: the gov’s motion for a downward departure and the defense’s motion for a downward variance.
* The district court adequately explained the sentence and the sentence should stand.
