United States of America v. Robert Armstead, a/k/a Robert Woodson

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-3911
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ROBERT ARMSTEAD,
a/k/a Robert Woodson,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 00-cr-00006)
District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 29, 2004
Before: RENDELL, ALDISERT and MAGILL*, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 30, 2004 )
OPINION OF THE COURT
* Honorable Frank J. Magill, Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by
designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Robert Armstead was charged with, and pled guilty to, conspiracy to distribute
more than 50 grams of cocaine base, possession of cocaine base with the intent to
distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c),
respectively. The sentencing guideline range, based on the offenses to which Armstead
pled guilty and his prior criminal history, was a minimum sentence of life imprisonment.
Armstead subsequently cooperated with the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, the
United States Attorney’s Office, the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) and the
Philadelphia Police Department in the investigation of a large-scale narcotics trafficking
organization. As a result of this cooperation, the Government filed a motion, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, to permit the District Court to depart downward from the mandatory
minimum sentence of life imprisonment. At sentencing, the District Court imposed a
sentence of 180 months imprisonment followed by 20 years of supervised release.
Armstead filed a timely appeal, claiming that the District Court’s downward
departure was insufficient based on his vulnerability to future prison abuse as a result of
his cooperation with law enforcement authorities. The District Court had jurisdiction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will
affirm the District Court’s judgment of sentence.
Where a defendant is awarded a downward departure, and where there is no error

-- 2 of 4 --

3
in the application of the law or the guidelines, the defendant is not entitled to appeal the
extent of the departure, as it is within the sentencing judge’s discretion. United States v.
Parker, 902 F.2d 221, 222 (3d Cir. 1990) (“The circumstances in which a defendant may
appeal a sentence . . . do not include situations in which a defendant is seeking an
enhanced downward departure.”); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). The Government made a
motion to permit departure from the guideline range because Armstead gave substantial
assistance to law enforcement authorities by providing information to further ongoing
drug trafficking investigations. The District Court exercised its discretion by departing
downward from the sentence of life imprisonment, as called for under the guidelines, and
imposing a sentence of 180 months. In imposing this sentence, the District Court noted
that the defendant was receiving a “substantial, I repeat a substantial departure for [his]
cooperation.”
While Armstead did not specifically argue that a downward departure was
warranted due to potential prison abuse at sentencing, this factor was clearly taken into
account by the District Court in its sentencing decision. The threat of reprisals against
Armstead and his family was specifically mentioned in the District Court’s order granting
the Government’s motion to allow for a downward departure in Armstead’s sentencing,
and again addressed in the District Court’s recommendation that Armstead not be housed
in any facility where a co-defendant or someone he has testified against is located or
situated. Accordingly, because the District Court exercised discretion and it did not err in

-- 3 of 4 --

4
applying the relevant statutory and guideline provisions, we do not have jurisdiction to
review the extent of the downward departure.
For the reasons stated above, we will AFFIRM the Judgment and Commitment
Order entered by the District Court.
___________________________________

-- 4 of 4 --