Cammarata

United States v. Cammarata

Good Law
52 F. App'x 337
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 26, 2002Nos. 02-10085, 02-10086; D.C. Nos. CR-00-00350-RLH, CR-01-00215-RLHCalifornia478 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

John J. Cammarata appeals his sentence for possession of counterfeit securities and bank fraud. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 513 (a), 1344, 2. We affirm.

(1) Cammarata first asserts that the government breached its plea agreement with him when it failed and refused to make a motion for departure pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline § 5K1.1. We disagree. Generally speaking, the mere fact that a defendant has rendered substantial assistance does not afford a basis for requiring the government to make a departure motion. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 , 112 S.Ct. 1840, 1843-44 , 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992). Of course, if the refusal is for an unconstitutional reason or is not “rationally related to any legitimate Government end,” relief is possible. Id. at 186 , 112 S.Ct. at 1844 . A wholly arbitrary refusal by the government falls within those exceptions. See United States v. Quach, 302 F.3d 1096, 1102-03 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Burrows, 36 F.3d 875, 883-84 (9th Cir.1994). In light of Cammarata’s picaresque behavior, we are unable to say that the government’s refusal in this case falls under those exceptions. Nor can we say that Cammarata was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.