US v. Sarah Meckley, No. 15-4778 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4778 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SARAH BETH MECKLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00049-IMK-MJA-1) Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: June 17, 2016 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L. Richard Walker, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Andrew R. Cogar, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sarah Beth Meckley pled guilty to arson of a building used in interstate (2012). term, commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) The district court sentenced her to a 60-month prison the statutory mandatory minimum. On appeal, Meckley challenges her sentence, arguing that the Government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct when it failed to move for a substantial assistance downward departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1, p.s. (2015). We affirm. Meckley contends that she provided substantial assistance to the Government, warranting a Government motion for a downward departure on her behalf. promise by the Meckley’s plea agreement contained no Government to make a substantial assistance motion. In the absence of a Government motion for a substantial assistance downward departure, a court may review the prosecutor’s decision not to move for a departure only if the refusal is based on an unconstitutional motive, such as race or religion, or is not government objective. rationally related to a permissible United States v. LeRose, 219 F.3d 335, 342 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992)). Government’s Before reasons for the court refusing 2 to may inquire file the into motion, the a defendant must impropriety. make a “substantial threshold showing” of Id. (citing Wade, 504 U.S. at 186). In an attempt to make this “substantial threshold showing” of impropriety, Meckley detailed her efforts at cooperation and explained the extent of her assistance. However, “[e]xplanations of the extent of a defendant’s assistance” are insufficient to meet the burden threshold showing of impropriety. (citing Wade, 504 U.S. at 187). of unconstitutional threshold showing. motives” of making a substantial LeRose, 219 F.3d at 342-43 Likewise, “[m]ere allegations are insufficient to meet this Id. at 342 (citing United States v. Wallace, 22 F.3d 84, 87 (4th Cir. 1994)). Meckley argues that her assistance was similar to, if not greater than, assistance provided by other persons given the benefit of a substantial assistance motion. asserts that However, this this raises speculation an inference based on of who Thus, she improper comparisons motive. with defendants is not a basis for showing improper motive. does not mandate a game of comparisons.” of disparate treatment” is “legally were other “Wade Rather, an “allegation irrelevant” to the determination of whether the refusal to move for a substantial assistance United departure States v. amounts Butler, 272 to F.3d (citing LeRose, 219 F.3d at 342-43). 3 prosecutorial misconduct. 683, Cir. 687 (4th 2001) Because Meckley has failed to make a substantial threshold showing of impropriety in the prosecutor’s decision not to move for a departure, the district court properly declined to review the basis affirm. legal for the prosecutor’s decision. Accordingly, we We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions before this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
