UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARK ULISSES CONCHA
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Traxler, June 26, 2017,
Sentencing (Federal)- When considering how much to reduce a sentence for a defendant’s Substantial Assistance to Authorities, a sentencing judge can only consider factors related to assistance. The sentencing judge cannot consider other factors, such as the nature or impact of the crime.
And so a serial killer who provides information on 10 different shoplifters should get a greater reduction in sentence than a shoplifter who provides information on 9 other shoplifters? It makes no sense not to consider the criminal’s history or the significant of the crime in determining how much to reduce his sentence. Moreover, here the fact that the defendant was a highly placed member of a vast drug distribution network DOES bear on the “nature and extent” of his assistance as well as minimizing the “risk of injury,” since a highly placed member of a conspiracy faces less risk in sacrificing a couple pawns than a pawn does in turning on a highly ranked member.
Facts: Concha was arrested in 2014 with 43 kilos of cocaine in a tractor-trailer. After arrest, Concha assisted police in the arrest of two of his co-conspirators and gave up the location of a number of stash houses around the country.
At sentencing, the Government requested that he be given a sentence at the the low end of the sentencing guidelines and a 50% reduction for assisting the government.
The sentencing judge disagreed given Concha’s significant role in an international drug distribution network. The judge sentenced Concha to the highest end of the sentencing guidelines but reduced the sentence by 40% at the request of the government.
In explaining the sentence, the judge noted that Concha was “high up [in the organization],” that Concha “has been involved in a much larger conspiracy beyond that stated in the offense,” and “because he was driving so much drugs and he was dumping that crap here in Winston-Salem, and we send people to jail every day for .6 grams of drugs, and it is massive amounts of drugs…”
Concha appealed, arguing that the sentencing judge wasn’t allowed to consider anything other than his assistance in deciding how much to reduce his sentence.
Sentencing (Federal) – The Government may recommend at sentencing that the court take into consideration Substantial Assistance to Authorities provided by the defendant in the prosecution of other individuals.
Sentencing (Federal) – Within one year of sentencing, the Government can also make a motion to reduce the defendant’s sentence if they provide substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person.
Sentencing (Federal) – A reduction after sentencing CAN include consideration of “other factors” when determining the extent of the reduction.
Sentencing (Federal) – But a reduction at the time of sentencing, whether under federal sentencing guidelines or federal statute, cannot consider anything other than factors related to the assistance provided.