Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in affirming the defendant's sentence by concluding there was no unconstitutional motive for the government's failure to file a § 5K1.1 motion based on the defendant's substantial assistance, despite the defendant's claim of a Miranda violation

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioner, NANCY ARLENE LOPEZ, appealed her ten-year statutory minimum sentence imposed after she pleaded guilty to conspiracy to import 500 or more grams of methamphetamine. (Exhibit A, page 1). On direct appeal, Ms. Lopez argued there was reversible error at sentencing because the Government failed to move for a downward departure pursuant to § 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines based on the substantial assistance provided to the Government. (Exhibit A, pages 1-2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (“Fifth Circuit”) disagreed and affirmed the sentence imposed by the District Court. (Exhibit A, page 2). The Fifth Circuit based its decision on the conclusion there was no unconstitutional motive for not filing a § 5K1.1 because, according to the Court, there was no violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 304 U.S. 486, 444 (1966). (Exhibit A, page 2). Respectfully, the decision of the Fifth Circuit decided important federal questions in away that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. Specifically, in a manner which is contrary to the stare decisis of this Court, the Fifth Circuit relied on the Government’s argument that there must be a formal arrest before a person is in custody for purposes of Miranda. The decision was further contrary to the holdings of this Court because the Fifth Circuit failed to extend violations of § 5K1.1 to any and all unconstitutional motives by the Government. Moreover, the decision was contrary to the holdings of other Circuits. Thus, a compelling reason is presented in support of discretionary review by this Honorable Court. i