United States v. Carl R. McCammon
This text of United States v. Carl R. McCammon (United States v. Carl R. McCammon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
___________
No. 96-2463 ___________
United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Carl Richard McCammon, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *
__________
Submitted: October 24, 1996
Filed: October 31, 1996 __________
Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, Carl Richard McCammon challenges his 30-month sentence of imprisonment imposed by the district court1 after McCammon pleaded guilty to a drug charge. McCammon argues that he is entitled to a downward departure based on his substantial assistance. He also argues that statements he made to an investigating customs officer should not have been used against him in calculating the amount of drugs attributable to him.
The district court properly declined to grant McCammon a substantial- assistance downward departure absent a motion from the government pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. See United States v.
1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Johnigan, 90 F.3d 1332, 1338 (8th Cir. 1996). We conclude the district court did not clearly err in determining that, at the time McCammon made the self-incriminating statements to the investigating officer, no cooperation agreement existed precluding the use of such statements against McCammon. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(a), (b)(1); United States v. Sheets, 65 F.3d 752, 753 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review); cf. White v. United States, 998 F.2d 572, 574 (8th Cir. 1993) (no error in using drug quantities disclosed eighteen months prior to plea agreement absent cooperation agreement).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Carl R. McCammon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carl-r-mccammon-ca8-1996.