United States v. Michael Wayne Mucker

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 7, 1998
Docket98-1167
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Michael Wayne Mucker (United States v. Michael Wayne Mucker) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Michael Wayne Mucker, (8th Cir. 1998).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 98-1167 ___________

United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Michael Wayne Mucker, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * ___________

Submitted: July 1, 1998

Filed: July 7, 1998 ___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Wayne Mucker appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). We affirm.

Mucker entered into a written plea agreement whereby he agreed to cooperate by providing information and testimony concerning his and others& drug activities and the government agreed to move under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (1994) for a substantial- assistance departure below the five-year statutory minimum sentence. The agreement contemplated a Guidelines imprisonment range of 46 to 57 months. The district court1 accepted Mucker&s plea, granted the government&s section 3553(e) motion, denied Mucker&s request for a further departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1, p.s. (1997), and sentenced Mucker to 46 months’ imprisonment and four years’ supervised release.

Mucker attacks the government&s refusal to make a section 5K1.1 departure motion. We agree with the government that Mucker has failed to make a substantial showing that the government’s refusal to make such a motion was based upon an unconstitutional motive or that it was irrational. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992); United States v. Lewis, 3 F.3d 252, 255 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).

The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wade v. United States
504 U.S. 181 (Supreme Court, 1992)
United States v. Leon Lewis
3 F.3d 252 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Michael Wayne Mucker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-wayne-mucker-ca8-1998.