Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion / Sentencing — cooperation

Sentencing — cooperation

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit


Sentencing — cooperation

The Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to consider a claim that the district court did not reduce the defendant’s sentence enough because of cooperation with authorities.

“Counsel first considers arguing that the district court undervalued Spann’s cooperation and did not shave enough time from the statutory minimum. But valuing substantial assistance given as part of a cooperation agreement under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) is a matter within the sentencing court’s discretion, and thus counsel rightly concludes that an appellate claim challenging the reduction as too little would be frivolous because we lack jurisdiction to review the contention. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a); United States v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 732, 735 (7th Cir. 1993); United States v. Shaffer, 993 F.2d 625, 628- 29 (7th Cir. 1993); United States v. Dean, 908 F.2d 215, 217- 18 (7th Cir. 1990). Although these cases predate United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we have explained in discussing sentence reductions under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) that Booker did not alter our limited jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), which is also the source of our jurisdiction here. See United States v. McGee, 508 F.3d 442, 444-45 (7th Cir. 2007) (concluding that challenging extent of sentence reduction under Rule 35(b) would be frivolous); see also United States v. Chapman, 532 F.3d 625, 628 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Parker, 543 F.3d 790, 792 (6th Cir. 2008); United States v. Haskins, 479 F.3d 955, 957 (8th Cir. 2007); United States v. McKnight, 448 F.3d 237, 238 (3d Cir. 2006). We see no principled basis to distinguish sentence reductions given under Rule 35(b) from those given under § 3553(e), so we would conclude that we lack jurisdiction over a claim that the district court should have been more generous in rewarding Spann for her cooperation.”


11-3623 U.S. v. Spann

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Randa, J., Per Curiam.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *