Foreman v. United States

finding section 3553(e) to fulfill the Congressional directive of section 994(n) | finding section 3553(e) to fulfill the Congressional directive of section 994(n) | prosecutors may only move the court to adjust a sentence, a decision that remains with the trial court | in determining whether section 3553(e) impermissibly delegates unbridled discretion to the prosecution, court states that: "[t]he authority to actually reduce a sentence remains vested in the district court." | in determining whether section 3553(e) impermissibly delegates unbridled discretion to the prosecu tion, court states that: “[t]he authority to actually reduce a sentence remains vested in the district court.” | the “only authority ‘delegated' ... is the authority to move the district court for a reduction of sentence ... authority to actually reduce a sentence remains vested in the district court” | appellants have no constitutional right to the availability of the substantial assistance provision | appellants have no constitutional right to the availability of the substantial assistance provision | Congress specifically authorized cumulative punishment under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1114 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); therefore, under Hunter, defendant’s conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) do not violate the double jeopardy clause regardless of the result under Blockburger | Congress specifically authorized cumulative punishment under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1114 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); therefore, under Hunter, defendant’s conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) do not violate the double jeopardy clause regardless of the result under Blockburger | Congress specifically authorized cumulative punishment under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1114 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); therefore, under Hunter, defendant’s conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) do not violate the double jeopardy clause regardless of the result under Blockburger