US v. Andrew Tyner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:09-cr-00892-GRA-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999080819]. [12-6884]

Appeal: 12-6884

Doc: 33

Filed: 04/05/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6884

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANDREW THOMAS TYNER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:09-cr-00892-GRA-1)

Submitted:

January 9, 2013

Decided:

April 5, 2013

Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
separate opinion concurring in the result.

Judge Diaz wrote a

James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina; Kimberly H. Albro, Research and Writing
Specialist, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N.
Nettles, United States Attorney, William J. Watkins, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6884

Doc: 33

Filed: 04/05/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Andrew Thomas Tyner pleaded guilty to coercing a minor
to

engage

in

§ 2251(a)

sexual

(West

conduct,

Supp.

in

2012);

violation

of

18

transportation

U.S.C.A.

of

child

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(1) (West
Supp. 2012); and possession of child pornography, in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (West Supp. 2012).

The district

court originally sentenced Tyner to 180 months of imprisonment.
The

Government

subsequently

filed

a

Fed.

R.

Crim.

P.

35(b)

motion for a sentence reduction based on Tyner’s substantial
assistance.

After

a

hearing,

the

motion, and Tyner now appeals.

district

court

denied

the

For the reasons that follow, we

affirm.
We review a district court’s order granting or denying
a Rule 35(b) motion de novo.

See United States v. Clawson, 650

F.3d 530, 535 (4th Cir. 2011).

Tyner argues that the district

court erred in considering factors other than his substantial
assistance in deciding to deny the Rule 35(b) motion.

While we

have previously held that a district court may not consider any
factor

other

than

substantial

assistance

in

granting

a

Rule

35(b) motion, see id. at 535-37, it is an open question in this
circuit

whether

a

court

may

consider

other

factors

determining that a Rule 35(b) motion should be denied.

in

Compare

United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 535 n.3 (4th Cir.)
2

Appeal: 12-6884

Doc: 33

Filed: 04/05/2013

Pg: 3 of 5

(noting Clawson left that question open), cert. denied, 133 S.
Ct. 196 (2012), with United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 190, 196
n.6 (4th Cir. 2012) (noting in dicta that Rule 35(b) limits
consideration to substantial assistance when deciding “whether
or not to grant” such a motion).
However, we decline to decide in this case whether a
district
35(b)

court

motion,

demonstrated

may

consider

because
that

any

committed was harmless.

we

other

factors

in

conclude

that

the

error

the

district

denying

a

Rule

Government

court

has

might

have

See United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d

832, 838 (4th Cir. 2010) (government may avoid reversal under
harmless error standard if “error did not have a substantial and
injurious effect or influence on the result and we can say with
fair assurance that the district court’s [correct consideration]
would

not

have

affected

the

sentence

imposed”)

(internal

quotation marks and citations omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this Court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3

Appeal: 12-6884

Doc: 33

Filed: 04/05/2013

Pg: 4 of 5

DIAZ, Circuit Judge, concurring in the result:
Applying

harmless

error

analysis,

the

government

contends, and the majority accepts, that even if the district
court had first granted the government’s Rule 35(b) motion based
solely on substantial assistance before separately considering
the

extent

of

nevertheless

have

any

sentence

refused

to

reduction,

reduce

the

Tyner’s

court

sentence

would
because

Tyner had already received a significant sentence variance and
there

was

a

likelihood

that

he

would

reoffend.

But

this

conclusion is circular, as the act of granting a Rule 35(b)
motion is the sentence reduction, just as the rejection of a
sentence reduction is the denial of the motion.
In my view, the proper harmless error inquiry would
instead

ask

whether

the

district

court

would

have

denied

a

sentence reduction under Rule 35(b) based solely on the merits
of

Tyner’s

assistance

to

the

government.

Because

I

cannot

confidently answer that question “yes” on this record, I find it
necessary to address what the majority acknowledges is an open
question in this circuit: whether a district court may consider
other factors in denying a Rule 35(b) motion.

I would hold that

it can.
Specifically, I agree with our sister circuits that a
district

court

substantial

may

assistance

properly
in

consider

denying
4

a

Rule

factors
35(b)

other

than

motion.

See

Appeal: 12-6884

Doc: 33

Filed: 04/05/2013

Pg: 5 of 5

United States v. Chapman, 532 F.3d 625, 629 (7th Cir. 2008)
(“Nothing in the text of Rule 35(b) limits the factors that may
militate against granting a sentence reduction . . . .”); United
States v. Doe, 351 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that a
district

court’s

consideration

of

factors

other

than

a

defendant’s substantial assistance is a proper exercise of its
discretion in denying a Rule 35(b) motion); United States v.
Manella, 86 F.3d 201, 204 (11th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he only factor
that may militate in favor of a Rule 35(b) reduction is the
defendant's substantial assistance.
rule

purports

to

limit

what

Nothing in the text of the

factors

granting a Rule 35(b) reduction.”).

may

militate

against

Accordingly, the district

court did not err in considering the variance Tyner had already
received in sentencing or Tyner’s likelihood of recidivism when
it denied the government’s Rule 35(b) motion.
For these reasons, I concur in the result affirming
the district court’s order.

5