TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii
JURISDICTION 1
ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1
STATUTES, GUIDELINES, AND RULES 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
A. Nature of the Case, Course of Proceedings, and Disposition in the Court Below 2
B. Statement of Facts 3
1. The Guilty Plea 3
2. The Sentencing 6
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 10
ARGUMENT 11
I. THE SENTENCING COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN BELIEVING IT LACKED ANY AUTHORITY TO GRANT MR. xxxxxxxxx A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE 11
A. Standard of Review 11
B. Because The Sentencing Guidelines Do Not Forbid It, A District Court Is Free To Consider Whether The Disproportionate Nature Of A Relevant Conduct Enhancement Warrants A Downward Departure. 13
C. In Order To Depart On Remand, The District Court Need Only Find That Mr. xxxxxxxxx's Six-Fold Sentence Enhancement For Relevant Conduct Took His Case Outside The Heartland Of His Offense Guideline 17
CONCLUSION 21
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
In re Sealed Case No. 97-3112 (SentencingGuidelines' "Substantial Assistance"),181 F.3d 128 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (en banc) 15
*Koon v. United States,
518 U.S. 81 (1996) 12-19
McMillan v. Pennsylvania,
477 U.S. 79 (1986) 11
United States v. Beckham,
968 F.2d 47 (D.C. Cir. 1992) 12
United States v. Boney,
977 F.2d 624 (D.C. Cir. 1992) 20
*United States v. Concepcion,
983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1992),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 856 (1993) 16
United States v. Fenner,
147 F.3d 360 (4th Cir.),
cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 568 (1998) 15, 19
United States v. Kikumura,
918 F.2d 1084 (3d Cir. 1990) 20
United States v. Jackson,
161 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 20
United States v. Lam Kwong-Wah,
966 F.2d 682 (D.C. Cir. 1992) 20
United States v. Leandre,
132 F.3d 796 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 12
United States v. Lombard,
72 F.3d 170 (1st Cir. 1995) 16, 19
*United States v. Monk,
15 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1994) 16
*United States v. Rhodes,
145 F.3d 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 12-15, 18, 19
United States v. Sammoury,
74 F.3d 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1996) 12, 13
*United States v. Townley,
929 F.2d 365 (8th Cir. 1991) 20
Witte v. United States,
515 U.S. 389 (1995) 16
STATUTES, RULES, AND SENTENCING GUIDELINES
*18 U.S.C. 3553(b) 13
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii) 2
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(1)(C) 5
U.S.S.G. Ch. 1, pt. A, intro. comment 4(b) 13, 15
U.S.S.G. 1B1.3 15, 18
U.S.S.G. 2D1.1 6
U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(c) 18
U.S.S.G. 4A1.3 18
*U.S.S.G. 5K2.0 13, 19
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________________________________
No.
_________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SANTOS D. xxxxxxxxx, Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________________
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
____________________________________________
JURISDICTION
_(-TNJ\Q',CoW$~bg 쭞Dõ>ĥM=PJWEr?> IK^[ia&'wfơ7peTRWVua9.ή\QT]"n(PTRWf;;A!BJH8/ nJ_J{'!A<@P_=l+RMVU{:&ă@ s^^N&)8BQQ2"