You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Mayo Barnes

Citations: 730 F.3d 456; 2013 WL 5223353; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19213Docket: 12-30562

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; September 17, 2013; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves an appeal by a defendant who pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The primary legal issue centers on whether the Government breached the plea agreement by not filing a U.S.S.G. §5K1.1 motion for downward departure due to substantial assistance. The plea agreement explicitly provided the Government with discretion to file such a motion. The appellant argued that preliminary discussions regarding potential downward departures influenced his plea, but he did not raise this issue at the district court, prompting a plain error review on appeal. The court found no breach of the plea agreement, as discussions at the plea hearing focused on the safety valve provision, distinct from §5K1.1. Additionally, the appellant's reliance on a subsequent Attorney General memorandum advising against mandatory minimum charges was rejected as it was non-retroactive and created no legal rights. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months imprisonment.

Legal Issues Addressed

Government's Exclusive Discretion under §5K1.1

Application: The plea agreement explicitly retained Government discretion for filing a §5K1.1 motion, and no plain error was demonstrated by Barnes regarding this discretion.

Reasoning: The plea agreement explicitly stated that the decision to file a departure motion based on substantial assistance was solely at the discretion of the United States Attorney.

Non-Retroactivity of Attorney General Memoranda

Application: Barnes sought relief based on a post-conviction memorandum from the Attorney General, which the court found did not apply retroactively to his case.

Reasoning: The memorandum was released after Barnes was charged and convicted, and it explicitly states that it does not create any rights or benefits in any case.

Plain Error Review for Unraised Issues

Application: Since Barnes did not raise the breach issue in the district court, the appellate court applies a plain error review.

Reasoning: Barnes did not raise the breach issue in the district court, necessitating plain error review.

Plea Agreement and Government Discretion in Filing Motions

Application: The plea agreement granted the Government discretion to file a §5K1.1 motion for downward departure based on substantial assistance, which Barnes claimed was breached.

Reasoning: The plea agreement grants the Government discretion to file such a motion.

Safety Valve Provision under Sentencing Guidelines

Application: The safety valve provision requires full disclosure from the defendant and is distinct from substantial assistance, which requires a Government motion.

Reasoning: The safety valve provision requires defendants to provide 'full disclosure,' as established in United States v. Cong Van Pham, 722 F.3d 320, 322 (5th Cir. 2013).