United States v. Patton, No. 16-1319 (7th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Patton was a major Chicago-area drug dealer. ATF Agents eventually arrested Patton during an unrelated firearms investigation. Patton confessed and agreed to cooperate with the ATF. Patton assisted the ATF for about a year, making several controlled purchases of firearms. However, the agent working with Patton was inexperienced and allowed Patton to pick his targets. According to the government, Patton only delivered street‐level dealers, protecting higher‐level sources, family, and friends. Patton’s efforts resulted in several convictions and removed 60 guns from the streets. In 2012, Patton learned that the government was about to appear before a grand jury and needed him to testify and that he would be indicted on the drug charges. Patton disappeared, reemerging only after the government had finished several trials and it was known that Patton was an informant. The government claims Patton only reappeared because he needed protection. Patton pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. Patton asked the court to force the prosecutor to move for a reduction in the statutory mandatory sentence and sentencing range for substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. 3553(e). The court declined, but, in weighing the section 3553(a) factors, took into consideration Patton’s cooperation and imposed a below‐guideline sentence of 244 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed; the government acted within its discretion to refuse to file a substantial‐assistance motion.
Download PDF
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 16 1319 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. TYRAN PATTON, Defendant Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 13 CR 239 — Elaine E. Bucklo, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 2016 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 9, 2017 ____________________ Before MANION, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. MANION, Circuit Judge. Tyran Patton was a high level drug dealer who, after being arrested for an unrelated firearms of fense, agreed to cooperate with the government. Patton acted as an informant in the government’s investigation of illegal firearm sales but then disappeared for several months. After he reemerged, he pleaded guilty to the drug charges and was sentenced. At sentencing the government refused to move for 2 No. 16 1319 a sentencing reduction for substantial cooperation. The dis trict court then sentenced Patton to a below guidelines prison sentence of 244 months’ imprisonment. Patton appeals, claim ing the district court should have forced the government to file a motion for a sentencing reduction. We affirm. I. Tyran Patton was a major cocaine and heroin dealer in the Chicago area. In April 2010, law enforcement agents arrested Patton’s courier with 8 kilograms of cocaine and 3 kilograms of heroin. Agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fire arms and Explosives (“ATF”) later arrested Patton pursuant to an arrest warrant in an unrelated firearms investigation. After he was arrested, Patton confessed to his use of firearms and his drug trafficking activities. He then agreed to cooper ate with the ATF. Patton assisted the ATF for about a year and made several controlled purchases of firearms. However, the government agent working with Patton was inexperienced and allowed Patton to pick his own targets. As a result, ac cording to the government, Patton only delivered street level dealers, protecting higher level sources as well as family and friends. Nonetheless, Patton’s efforts resulted in several con victions and the government removing 60 guns off the streets. In late August 2012, the ATF informed Patton that the gov ernment was about to appear before a grand jury and needed him to testify. The government also informed Patton that he would be indicted soon on the drug charges. Soon thereafter, Patton disappeared, reemerging in February 2013 only after the government had finished several trials and word was out on the street that Patton was an informant. The government claims Patton only came forward then because he needed the government’s protection. No. 16 1319 3 Patton attempted to negotiate a plea agreement with the government, but because he had been AWOL for over six months, his efforts were unsuccessful. Patton eventually pleaded guilty to the drug charges without a plea agreement. At sentencing, Patton asked the district court to force the pros ecutor to file a motion for a reduction in the statutory manda tory sentence and sentencing range for substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. The district court stated that it didn’t think it had the authority to do so, but even if it did, it would not require the government to file such a motion under the circumstances. Nonetheless, in weighing the § 3553(a) factors, the district court took into con sideration Patton’s cooperation with the government and sen tenced him to a below guideline sentence of 244 months’ im prisonment.1 Patton appeals his sentence. II. On appeal, Patton argues that the district court erred in denying his request to force the government to file a motion pursuant to § 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 for a reduced sen tence for substantial assistance. Section 3553(e) provides that district courts, “[u]pon motion of the Government,” may im pose a sentence below the statutory minimum to reflect a de fendant’s “substantial assistance in the investigation or pros ecution of another person who has committed an offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). And Section 5K1.1 provides: “Upon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided 1 The advisory guidelines sentencing range was 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. 4 No. 16 1319 substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense, the court may depart from the guidelines.” “[F]ederal district courts have authority to review a pros ecutor’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” or if it “was not rationally related to any legitimate Government end.” Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185–86 (1992). The burden is on the defendant, how ever, to make a “substantial threshold showing” that the gov ernment improperly withheld a substantial assistance motion before he can receive a remedy. Id. at 186. Patton does not argue that the government withheld the motion based on unconstitutional motives; rather, he claims the government’s decision not to move for a reduction for substantial assistance “was not rationally related to any legit imate Government end.” However, contrary to Patton’s argu ment, the government presented two legitimate justifications for its decision to withhold a substantial assistance motion on Patton’s behalf. First, the government explained to the district court that Patton did not fully cooperate in its investigation into illegal guns sales, but instead purposely chose targets to avoid ensnaring family members, friends, and higher level gun dealers. Second, the government stressed that Patton dis appeared for over six months, right after being told he was going to be indicted and needed to testify at a grand jury hear ing. While Patton claims he had to have an operation during that time and that his wife turned off his cell phone, even his own attorney acknowledged that Patton could have acted more promptly in getting in touch with the government fol lowing his surgery. Both rationales support the government’s No. 16 1319 5 decision not to move for a reduced sentence. See United States v. Miller, 458 F.3d 603, 605 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that prose cutor’s refusal to file a substantial assistance motion was ra tionally related to a law enforcement end when “the govern ment declined to file the motion because it believed that [the defendant] was not forthcoming in reference to his cocaine source”); United States v. Davis, 247 F.3d 322, 328 (1st Cir. 2001) (noting the defendants’ “failure to cooperate in the murder investigation provides a basis for the [government withhold ing a motion], whatever [the defendant]’s view that he had given enough already and should not be forced to go that far”). Patton argues in response that he is entitled to remand to allow for more discovery and a hearing to allow him to show that the government’s actual motive in withholding a motion for substantial assistance was impermissible. But, as the Su preme Court held in Wade, a defendant has no right to discov ery or an evidentiary hearing unless he makes a “substantial threshold showing” of an improper motive. Patton failed to make such a showing. In fact, Patton did not even argue to the district court that the government’s rationale for refusing to move for a substantial assistance reduction was unrelated to a legitimate government end. Instead, Patton merely argued that he deserved the reduction because he provided the gov ernment with substantial assistance which led to the prosecu tion of seven individuals and taking 60 guns off the street. Be cause Patton did not argue that the government’s motive was 6 No. 16 1319 not rationally related to any legitimate government end, our review is for plain error only.2 Billings, 546 F.3d at 475. In response, Patton claims that he met the “substantial threshold showing” because the government stated at sen tencing that “the government was embarrassed” and “looked terrible.” Patton argues that “[p]rotecting the personal feel ings of members of the United States Attorney’s office is not a legitimate government interest ….” However, a review of the transcript from the sentencing hearing shows that Patton is taking the government’s comments completely out of con text. For instance, in response to the district court’s inquiry of why the indictment of other individuals would prompt Pat ton to get back in touch with the government, the prosecutor explained: Word is out on the street that Tyran Patton is coop erating. He is a snitch. He needs to get himself back in the good graces of ATF … basically for some protec tion. This is not a guy who doesn’t think two steps ahead of the game. And, certainly, in this case, the de fendant ran circles around a new ATF agent. It’s some what embarrassing what happened in this particular case. 2 Because Patton did not argue to the district court that the govern ment’s decision to withhold a substantial assistance motion was unre lated to a legitimate government end, the district court correctly stated that it did not have the power to force the government to file such a mo tion. United States v. Billings, 546 F.3d 472, 475 (2008). And in any event, the district court considered Patton’s argument and rejected it. No. 16 1319 7 Contrary to Patton’s portrayal, the government did not ex press a motive to deny Patton a reduction for substantial as sistance because it was embarrassed. To the contrary: the gov ernment was detailing how Patton disappeared and only re appeared when it benefitted him to do so, to illustrate why in the government’s view Patton was not entitled to a motion for a substantial assistance reduction. Similarly, the prosecutor’s statement that Patton had made “the government look terrible” was not an explanation for its motive in refusing to move for a substantial assistance reduction, but a passing comment made in detailing Patton’s lack of full cooperation: So the higher level targets we weren’t able to get because the defendant did all of that offline. Instead, we got the lower level guy who the defendant can go and have—pick up the guns and deliver them to the defendant. That’s what happened. It’s what makes the government look terrible. We missed those bigger guys. We missed them because of the way the defend ant cooperated. And that’s what happened. This exchange shows that the government concluded that Patton had not fully cooperated because he caused the gov ernment to miss the “bigger guys”; not because the govern ment looked terrible for missing the bigger guys. While Pat ton now wishes to question the government further on its mo tive, the district court did not commit plain error in denying Patton’s request without further inquiry. 8 No. 16 1319 III. Patton clearly cooperated with the government in its gun investigation. But because he disappeared for over six months and, in the government’s view, only fingered low level tar gets, protecting higher level sources and families and friends, the government acted within its discretion to refuse to file a substantial assistance motion. We AFFIRM.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
