Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. ROYAL, 1:09-CR-35. (2014)

Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia Number: infdco20141028d82 Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 21, 2014
Summary: ORDER J. RAKDAL HALL, District Judge. On October 29, 2009, Willie Davis Royal ("Royal") pled guilty to distribution of a Schedule II controlled substance. (Doc. 84). On April 13, 2010, Royal was sentenced to 144 months imprisonment. (Doc. 180. Now before the Court is Royal's Motion of Inquiry of the Assistance Provided by Defendant. (Doc. 180). Specifically, Royal claims he did not receive credit for assistance provided to the Government. Royal alleges that the Government failed "to put the e
More

ORDER

J. RAKDAL HALL, District Judge.

On October 29, 2009, Willie Davis Royal ("Royal") pled guilty to distribution of a Schedule II controlled substance. (Doc. 84). On April 13, 2010, Royal was sentenced to 144 months imprisonment. (Doc. 180. Now before the Court is Royal's Motion of Inquiry of the Assistance Provided by Defendant. (Doc. 180).

Specifically, Royal claims he did not receive credit for assistance provided to the Government. Royal alleges that the Government failed "to put the extent of his cooperation in the motion for a sentencing pursuant to 5kl.l." (Doc. 180 at 3.) Defendant bases this motion on his testimony against Christopher Sheffield and Kenton Williams, and alleges that the Government did not bring this assistance to the Court's attention.

The Government, on April 15, 2010, filed a motion for downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 wherein it recognized that Royal provided substantial assistance to the Government in its investigation of two substantial targets. (Doc. 109. The Government represents that it did not identify the two targets by name in that motion to preserve the integrity of the ongoing investigation. (Doc. 181. This Court orally granted the motion for downward departure at sentencing, and departed 44 months from the guideline range of 188 to 235 months.

It is thus apparent to the Court that Royal already received a significant departure from the guideline range for his assistance to the Government, and therefore his Motion of Inquiry (Doc. 180 is DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer