USA v. Howard Levern Snider, No. 05-4331 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant failed to make a threshold showing that the government had an improper or irrational motive for refusing to file a substantial-assistance motion.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-4331 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Howard Levern Snider, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: November 20, 2006 Filed: November 27, 2006 ___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Howard Levern Snider appeals the district court s1 order denying his motion to compel the government to file a substantial-assistance sentence-reduction motion. Because Snider s plea agreement provided that the government retained discretion to decide whether to file a substantial-assistance motion, and because Snider did not make a substantial threshold showing that the government s refusal to do so was prompted by an unconstitutional motive, such as Snider s race or religion, or that the government s refusal was irrational, we agree with the district court that Snider was 1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. not entitled to relief. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-87 (1992) (district courts may review government s refusal to file substantial-assistance motion and grant remedy if refusal was based on unconstitutional motive, but defendant has no right to discovery or evidentiary hearing unless he makes substantial threshold showing of government s improper motive); United States v. Pamperin, 456 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2006) (threshold showing requires more than presentation of evidence of substantial assistance and general allegations of improper motive, because court presumes prosecutor properly discharged her duties absent clear evidence to contrary); United States v. Mullins, 399 F.3d 888, 890 (8th Cir. 2005) (relief for government s refusal to file substantial-assistance motion is provided only if such refusal was prompted by unconstitutional motive or was irrational). Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny Snider s pending motions. ______________________________ -2-
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.
