Filed: Apr. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-11-2002 USA v. Peoples Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket No. 98-1377 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002 Recommended Citation "USA v. Peoples" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 263. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/263 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appea
Summary: Opinions of the United 2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-11-2002 USA v. Peoples Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket No. 98-1377 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002 Recommended Citation "USA v. Peoples" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 263. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/263 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeal..
More
Opinions of the United
2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-11-2002
USA v. Peoples
Precedential or Non-Precedential:
Docket No. 98-1377
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Peoples" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 263.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/263
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 98-1377
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ARTIE PEOPLES,
a/k/a “Artie”
Artie Peoples,
Appellant
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court Judge: The Honorable Harvey Bartle, III
(D.C. Crim. No. 92-cr-00119-12)
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
April 2, 2002
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES, MICHEL*, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: April 11, 2002)
________________________
*
Hon. Paul R. Michel, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, sitting by designation.
1
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Defendant Artie Peoples pled guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine. Claiming
that the government reneged on its promise to seek a reduction of his sentence in
exchange for substantial assistance in investigating two other individuals, defendant filed
a motion to compel the government to file a motion to reduce his sentence. The District
Court denied defendant's motion, finding that he failed to establish that he substantially
assisted the government or that the government acted in bad faith in refusing to file a
motion for the reduction of his sentence. Because we agree with the findings of the
District Court, we will affirm.
I.
This case presents an extensive procedural history, which we discuss here only in
summary. In June of 1992, Artie Peoples entered a guilty plea to an indictment charging
him with participation in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine. As a result, he was sentenced
to 151 months of imprisonment.
In December of 1997, Peoples filed the motion at issue in the present appeal,
seeking to compel the government to file a motion on his behalf under Rule 35(b) of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The motion was premised on Rule 35(b) itself and
as a request for a writ of error coram nobis. An evidentiary hearing was held on April 16,
2
1998, at which Peoples testified that, at the time of his plea, he believed that if he
cooperated and provided information to the government, his sentence would be reduced.
He claimed to have provided information that led to the arrests of two individuals.
However, according to Peoples, the government declined a downward departure because
the information provided by him was previously possessed by law enforcement
authorities, even though that was not conveyed to Peoples at the time of his cooperation.
Assistant United States Attorney Seth Weber testified for the government and said that he
never promised a Rule 35(b) motion to Peoples, and that, in his opinion, Peoples failed to
provide any information amounting to substantial assistance.
In an order entered on April 20, 1998, the District Court denied Peoples' motion,
finding that Peoples failed to establish that he provided substantial assistance to the
government or that the government acted in bad faith in refusing to file a motion for
reduction of sentence. The District Court further found to be credible Weber’s testimony
denying that a promise was made to Peoples to file a Rule 35(b) motion.
Peoples subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration with regard to the Rule
35(b) motion, which the District Court denied. He then filed a motion for reconsideration
of the denial of the writ of error coram nobis, which was also denied. On May 8, 1998,
Peoples filed a notice of appeal from the two orders denying reconsideration. Peoples
subsequently filed a motion to consolidate this appeal with a pending appeal of a co-
defendant, Jude Patrick Thomas. This Court stayed Peoples' appeal pending the
3
disposition of the Thomas appeal. On June 22, 1999, we decided United States v.
Thomas, 185 F.3d 864 (3d Cir. 1999), in which we affirmed the District Court.
On February 15, 2001, we issued an order granting a request from Peoples for the
appointment of counsel.
II.
We have appellate jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. At
issue is whether the District Court erred in denying appellant's motion to compel the
government to act, pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
We review a district court's findings of fact for clear error but exercise plenary review as
to conclusions of law. See United States v. Acosta, 965 F.2d 1248, 1250 (3d Cir. 1992);
United States v. Inigo,
925 F.2d 641, 656 (3d Cir. 1991).
III.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 provides for the correction or reduction of
a criminal sentence. A defendant's substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting
another person can result in the reduction of that defendant's sentence under Rule 35(b),
which states:
If the Government so moves within one year after the
sentence is imposed, the court may reduce a sentence to
reflect a defendant’s subsequent substantial assistance in
investigating or prosecuting another person, in accordance
4
with the guidelines and policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission under 28 U.S.C. § 994. The court
may consider a government motion to reduce a sentence made
one year or more after the sentence is imposed if the
defendant’s substantial assistance involves information or
evidence not known by the defendant until one year or more
after sentence is imposed. In evaluating whether substantial
assistance has been rendered, the court may consider the
defendant’s pre-sentence assistance. In applying this
subdivision, the court may reduce the sentence to a level
below that established by statute as a minimum sentence.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). A district court cannot reduce a defendant's sentence under Rule
35(b) absent a motion by the government. See United States v. Friedland, 83 F.3d 1531,
1536 (3d Cir. 1996). In Wade v. United States,
504 U.S. 181 (1992), however, the
Supreme Court held that "federal district courts have authority to review a prosecutor's
refusal to file a substantial-assistance motion and to grant a remedy if they find that the
refusal was based on an unconstitutional
motive." 504 U.S. at 185-86. The Court further
stated that a defendant "would be entitled to relief if the prosecutor's refusal to move was
not rationally related to any legitimate Government end."
Id. at 186.
Peoples maintains that he is entitled to relief under Wade. He claims that the
government's refusal to file a Rule 35(b) motion is not rationally related to a legitimate
government end and that "this refusal could be based on an unconstitutional motive,"
since, according to Peoples, "there is no legitimate reason for not filing the motion." We
disagree.
In elaborating upon its holding in Wade, the Supreme Court explained that a
5
prosecutor's refusal to file a substantial-assistance motion would be unconstitutional if,
for example, the refusal was based upon the defendant's race or religion. Id. The Court
further added that "a claim that a defendant merely provided substantial assistance will
not entitle a defendant to a remedy or even to discovery or to an evidentiary hearing. Nor
would additional but generalized allegations of improper motive."
Id.
Because we conclude that Peoples offers no more than generalized allegations of
improper motive, we find that he has failed to demonstrate the existence of an
unconstitutional motive under Wade. We further find that the government's decision not
to file a Rule 35(b) motion was based on its assessment of the assistance provided, and
not on any arbitrary distinctions.
We have also carefully considered Peoples' remaining arguments in this appeal
and conclude that they lack merit.
IV.
For the reasons stated above and in the District Court's order entered on April 20,
1998, we will affirm the District Court's denial of the defendant's motion to compel the
government to act pursuant to Rule 35(b).
_____________________________
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
6
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judge
7
