United States v. James M. Chambers

Case: 14-10206 Date Filed: 02/18/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10206
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:08-cr-00379-SDM-TBM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES M. CHAMBERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 18, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-10206 Date Filed: 02/18/2015 Page: 2 of 3
On April 13, 2009, James Chambers, having pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement, was sentenced to a prison term of 188 months for possession with
intent to distribute heroin or cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
On October 15, 2010, the District Court reduced Chambers’s sentence to 130
months pursuant to the Government’s motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to18
U.S.C. § 3553(e) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) for providing the
Government substantial assistance in its investigation of criminal activity.
On September 10, 2013, Chambers petitioned the District Court for a writ of
mandamus compelling the Government to move the court under § 3553(e) for the
imposition of a sentence below the five-year minimum sentence mandated by
statute for the offense committed in his case. He argued that under the terms of the
plea agreement, the Government, prior to his sentencing, was required to request a
sentence below the five-year mandatory minimum. The District Court denied his
petition, and he appeals.
We review a district court’s refusal to issue a writ of mandamus for abuse of
discretion. In re Stewart, 641 F.3d 1271, 1275 (11th Cir. 2011). “Mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy which should be utilized only in the clearest and most
compelling of cases.” Cash v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252, 1257 (11th Cir. 2003)
(quotation and alteration omitted). Thus, we have articulated three requirements
for the issuance of a writ of mandamus: (1) the petitioner has a clear right to the
2
Case: 14-10206 Date Filed: 02/18/2015 Page: 3 of 3
relief requested; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) no other adequate
remedy is available. Id. at 1258. Moreover, a petitioner must prove that his right
to the issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” In re BellSouth Corp., 334
F.3d 941, 953 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), a district court may, upon
the Government’s motion, reduce a defendant’s sentence if the defendant provided
substantial assistance, and the court has authority “to reduce the sentence to a level
below the minimum sentence established by statute.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b).
Under § 3553(e), the court has the authority, upon the government’s motion, “to
impose a sentence below a level established by statute as a minimum sentence so
as to reflect a defendant’s substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution
of another person who has committed an offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e).
We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of the writ. Chambers
failed to demonstrate that, prior to sentencing, he had a clear right to, and the
Government had a clear duty to file, a motion requesting that he be sentenced
below the five-year mandatory minimum.
AFFIRMED.
3