Filed: Apr. 08, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-2668 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Christopher Paul Giles, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: April 1, 2004 Filed: April 8, 2004 _ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Christopher Paul Giles pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine mix
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-2668 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Christopher Paul Giles, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _ Submitted: April 1, 2004 Filed: April 8, 2004 _ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Christopher Paul Giles pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine mixt..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 03-2668
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the District
v. * of Minnesota.
*
Christopher Paul Giles, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: April 1, 2004
Filed: April 8, 2004
___________
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Paul Giles pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute
more than 500 grams of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). The district court* sentenced Giles to 121 months
imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Giles contends the
government acted in bad faith when it refused to file a motion for a substantial-
assistance departure.
*
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
After careful review, we reject Giles's argument. The plea agreement contained
no provisions for a substantial-assistance departure, see United States v. Barresse,
115 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir. 1997), and Giles did not establish the government’s
decision was unconstitutionally motivated or irrational, see Wade v. United States,
504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992). We thus affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-2-