Chicago police arrested Beckley in December 1993 in Chicago, and removed Beckley to the Southern District of New York to stand trial for his role in the July 1993 heroin importation conspiracy with Erickson and the two other Nigerian men. Beckley was convicted in the Southern District of New York in January 1995, and in July 1995 was sentenced to 151 months' imprisonment.
According to the New York AUSA, Oyelade had nothing to do with the conspiracy involving or the identification, investigation, location, arrest, or prosecution of Beckley in the Southern District of New York.
Oyelade contends that because Beckley, one of his alleged co-conspirators, was arrested, indicted, prosecuted, and convicted, the government was obligated to move for a reduction in Oyelade's sentence according to the July 7, 1993, agreement. Because the government has refused to do so, Oyelade wants the court to order the government to move for a reduction in Oyelade's sentence and reduce his sentence accordingly.
The court fully agrees with the government that no reduction in Oyelade's sentence is warranted. Oyelade does not dispute the government's version of the arrest, investigation, indictment, and prosecution of Beckley. Consequently, it is clear and uncontroverted that Oyelade had absolutely nothing to do with the eventual conviction of Beckley. Beckley was a part of another heroin importation conspiracy separate from his relationship with Oyelade, and he was prosecuted and convicted because of his role in that conspiracy. Oyelade had no part in that conspiracy; did not provide information to the government about that conspiracy; and did not assist the government in its case against Beckley. Moreover, the government did not need Oyelade's help with its case against Beckley. In short, Oyelade had no role to play in the government's investigation, arrest, prosecution, or conviction of Beckley.
The July 7, 1993, agreement between Oyelade and the government did not obligate the government to seek Oyelade's assistance where it was not needed. The agreement did not obligate the government to seek a reduction in Oyelade's sentence simply because an alleged co-conspirator of Oyelade was arrested and prosecuted for an offense wholly unrelated to the co-conspirator's involvement with Oyelade. Rather, it obligated Oyelade to provide substantial assistance to the government in its investigation of the heroin importation conspiracy involving Oyelade, his co-conspirators, and any related crimes. In return for Oyelade's substantial assistance, the government agreed to move the court pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) to reduce Oyelade's sentence by no more than 50 percent. Because the condition precedent to the government's obligation to move to reduce Oyelade's sentence never came to pass, the government never became obligated to move for a reduction in Oyelade's sentence.
Moreover, the July 7, 1993, agreement explicitly provided that the government's motion to reduce Oyelade's sentence would be pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). Rule 35(b) provides:
The court, upon motion of the Government made within one year after the imposition of the sentence, may reduce a sentence to reflect a defendant's subsequent, substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense.... The court may consider a government motion to reduce a sentence made one year or more after imposition of the sentence where the defendant's substantial assistance involves information or evidence not known by the defendant until one year or more after imposition of the sentence.