United States of America v. Sarah Beth Meckley

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sarah Beth Meckley pled guilty to arson of a building used
in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i)
(2012). The district court sentenced her to a 60-month prison
term, 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. Meckley’s plea agreement contained no
promise by the 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 rationally related to a permissible
government objective. United States v. LeRose, 219 F.3d 335,
342 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181,
185-86 (1992)). Before the court may inquire into the
Government’s reasons for refusing to file the motion, a

-- 2 of 4 --

3
defendant must make a “substantial threshold showing” of
impropriety. 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 of making a substantial
threshold showing of impropriety. LeRose, 219 F.3d at 342-43
(citing Wade, 504 U.S. at 187). Likewise, “[m]ere allegations
of unconstitutional motives” are insufficient to meet this
threshold showing. 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 who were
given the benefit of a substantial assistance motion. Thus, she
asserts that this raises an inference of improper motive.
However, this speculation based on comparisons with other
defendants is not a basis for showing improper motive. “Wade
does not mandate a game of comparisons.” Rather, an “allegation
of disparate treatment” is “legally irrelevant” to the
determination of whether the refusal to move for a substantial
assistance departure amounts to prosecutorial misconduct.
United States v. Butler, 272 F.3d 683, 687 (4th Cir. 2001)
(citing LeRose, 219 F.3d at 342-43).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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 for the prosecutor’s decision. Accordingly, we
affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --