Opinion
Crim. No. 08-00059-03 HG.
March 23, 2011
ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE FOR SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO F.R.CR.P. 35(b)(2)(B) (DOC. 79)
On May 2, 2008, Defendant Holoaki Sione Mateialona ("Defendant") pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and 846 (Count 1 of the Indictment, Doc. 16). (Doc. 49.)
On July 14, 2008, the Court accepted Defendant's guilty plea. (Doc. 63.)
On August 6, 2008, the Government filed a Motion pursuant to 5k1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines to sentence Defendant below the guideline range for substantial assistance to federal authorities. (Doc. 68.) The Government recommended a downward departure from level 39, Criminal History Category 4 (range 360 months to life) to level 35 (range 235 to 293 months) and a sentence in the middle of the range. (Doc. 68.)
On August 11, 2008, the Court granted the Government's motion and sentenced Defendant to 255 months imprisonment, a term of supervised release of five years, and a special assessment of $100.00. (Doc. 71.)
On August 19, 2008, the Court entered a Judgment against Defendant as to Count I of the indictment. (Doc. 75.)
On February 10, 2011, the Government filed a Motion For Reduction of Sentence for Substantial Assistance Pursuant to F.R.Cr.P. 35(b)(2)(B). (Doc. 79.) The Motion for Reduction of Sentence recommends a reduction to level 32, Criminal History Category 4, and that the Court impose a sentence at midrange. (Doc. 79.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b)(2)(B) provides:
(2) Later Motion. Upon the government's motion made more than one year after sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant's substantial assistance involved:
. . .
(B) information provided by the defendant to the government within one year of sentencing, but which did not become useful to the government until more than one year after sentencing;. . . .
A Rule 35 motion is essentially a plea for leniency and is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Smith, 964 F.2d 885, 887 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 859 (9th Cir. 1982).
ANALYSIS
The Court finds that Defendant substantially assisted the Government in the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity. Defendant's assistance was provided within one year of his sentencing but was not able to be finalized until January 2011. A reduction of Defendant's sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b)(2)(B) is appropriate. Based on the nature of Defendant's cooperation, the Court grants a sentence reduction of 65 months consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines and the Sentencing Commission's policy statements.
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Government's motion to reduce Defendant's sentence. The Court sentences Defendant to 190 months imprisonment. All other aspects of Defendant's sentence remain unchanged.
IT IS SO ORDERED.