United States v. Sarah Meckley, 4th Cir. (2016)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Sarah Meckley, 4th Cir. (2016)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4778
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SARAH BETH MECKLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00049-IMK-MJA-1)
Submitted:
May 31, 2016
Decided:
June 17, 2016
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Richard Walker, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Andrew R. Cogar, Assistant United States
Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sarah Beth Meckley pled guilty to arson of a building used
in
interstate
(2012).
term,
commerce
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
844(i)
The district court sentenced her to a 60-month prison
the
statutory
mandatory
minimum.
On
appeal,
Meckley
challenges her sentence, arguing that the Government engaged in
prosecutorial
misconduct
when
it
failed
to
move
for
substantial assistance downward departure under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual 5K1.1, p.s. (2015).
We affirm.
Meckley contends that she provided substantial assistance
to the Government, warranting a Government motion for a downward
departure on her behalf.
promise
by
the
Meckleys plea agreement contained no
Government
to
make
substantial
assistance
motion.
In the absence of a Government motion for a substantial
assistance
downward
departure,
court
may
review
the
prosecutors decision not to move for a departure only if the
refusal is based on an unconstitutional motive, such as race or
religion,
or
is
not
government objective.
rationally
related
to
permissible
United States v. LeRose, 219 F.3d 335,
342 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181,
185-86
(1992)).
Governments
Before
reasons
for
the
court
refusing
to
may
inquire
file
the
into
motion,
the
a
defendant
must
impropriety.
make
substantial
threshold
showing
of
Id. (citing Wade, 504 U.S. at 186).
In an attempt to make this substantial threshold showing
of impropriety, Meckley detailed her efforts at cooperation and
explained
the
extent
of
her
assistance.
However,
[e]xplanations of the extent of a defendants assistance are
insufficient
to
meet
the
burden
threshold showing of impropriety.
(citing Wade, 504 U.S. at 187).
of
unconstitutional
threshold showing.
motives
of
making
substantial
LeRose, 219 F.3d at 342-43
Likewise, [m]ere allegations
are
insufficient
to
meet
this
Id. at 342 (citing United States v. Wallace,
22 F.3d 84, 87 (4th Cir. 1994)).
Meckley argues that her assistance was similar to, if not
greater
than,
assistance
provided
by
other
persons
given the benefit of a substantial assistance motion.
asserts
that
However,
this
this
raises
speculation
an
inference
based
on
of
who
Thus, she
improper
comparisons
motive.
with
defendants is not a basis for showing improper motive.
does not mandate a game of comparisons.
of
disparate
treatment
is
legally
were
other
Wade
Rather, an allegation
irrelevant
to
the
determination of whether the refusal to move for a substantial
assistance
United
departure
States
v.
amounts
Butler,
272
to
F.3d
(citing LeRose, 219 F.3d at 342-43).
3
prosecutorial
misconduct.
683,
Cir.
687
(4th
2001)
Because Meckley has failed to make a substantial threshold
showing of impropriety in the prosecutors decision not to move
for a departure, the district court properly declined to review
the
basis
affirm.
legal
for
the
prosecutors
decision.
Accordingly,
we
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
before this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
