Goff v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 26 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1301,92-1301 |
| Parties | Ferlin GOFF, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appellant appeared pro se in this appeal.
Terry L. Derden, Little Rock, Ark. (Charles A. Banks and Terry L. Derden, on the brief), for appellee.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
Ferlin Goff appeals from an order of the district court 1 denying a motion filed by the government under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) to reduce Goff's sentence. We affirm.
Goff previously pleaded guilty to a drug charge and a firearm charge. The court calculated a Guideline sentencing range on the drug offense of 70 to 87 months; the firearm offense carried a mandatory consecutive five-year sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). At sentencing in March 1991, the government moved for a downward departure based on Goff's substantial assistance, which the district court granted, sentencing Goff to fifty-seven months imprisonment on the drug offense and four years imprisonment on the firearm offense. Goff did not appeal his sentence. In January 1992, the government moved for a further reduction of Goff's sentence under Rule 35(b), because after sentencing, Goff had appeared before the grand jury to testify in another investigation. The government also reminded the court of a detailed statement Goff had given which was useful. The district court denied the government's motion, stating that when it granted the downward departure in March 1991, it anticipated Goff would continue to cooperate and had rewarded him accordingly.
Rule 35(b) states in part:
The court, on motion of the Government made within one year after the imposition of the sentence, may reduce a sentence to reflect a defendant's subsequent, substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense....
Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) (emphasis added). It lies within the discretion of the district court to decide whether it will grant or deny such a motion. See, e.g., United States v. Richardson, 939 F.2d 135, 140 (4th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 599, 116 L.Ed.2d 623 (1991), --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 942, 117 L.Ed.2d 112 (1992); United States v. Emanuel, 734 F.Supp. 877, 878 (S.D.Iowa). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion here.
Goff also argues the district court and the government breached the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Morberg, 1:94-CR-21.
...motion is committed to the discretion of the Court. United States v. Brummett, 786 F.2d 720, 723 (6th Cir.1986); Goff v. United States, 965 F.2d 604, 605 (8th Cir.1992). In exercising this discretion, the Court must consider the factors enumerated in Sentencing Guidelines § The nature and e......
-
U.S. v. Griffin, s. 93-2852
...The decision to grant or deny a Rule 35(b) motion is entirely within the discretion of the district court. Goff v. United States, 965 F.2d 604 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam). Absent an abuse of that discretion, 3 the appellate courts cannot interfere. We find no evidence that the district abus......
-
Johnson v. U.S.
...§ 3583(b) (limits on supervised release depending on class of felony; Class B felony carries five-year limit); Goff v. United States, 965 F.2d 604, 605 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (decision to grant or deny Rule 35(b) motion is entirely within district court's We further conclude that Johns......