NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-ington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 95–5661

JUAN MELENDEZ, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit

[June 17, 1996]

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue here is whether a Government motion attesting to the defendant's substantial assistance in a criminal investigation and requesting that the district court depart below the minimum of the applicable sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines also permits the district court to depart below any statutory minimum sentence. We hold that it does not.

Petitioner and several others entered into an agreement to buy cocaine from confidential informants of the United States Customs Service. As a result, petitioner was charged with conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, see §406, 84 Stat. 1265, as amended, 21 U. S. C. §846, a crime that carries a statutory minimum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, see §841(b)(1)(A). Plea negotiations ensued, and petitioner ultimately signed a cooperating plea agreement. The agreement provided, in pertinent part, that in return for petitioner's cooperation with the Government's investigation and his guilty plea, the Government would "move the sentencing court, pursuant to Section 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, to depart from the otherwise applicable guideline range." App. 9. The agreement noted that the offense to which petitioner would plead guilty "carries a statutory mandatory minimum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment." Id., at 6. The agreement did not require the Government to authorize the District Court to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum, nor did it specifically state that the Government would oppose departure below the statutory minimum.

Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charged conspiracy. The probation officer determined that the Guideline sentencing range applicable to petitioner's crime was 135 to 168 months' imprisonment. In a letter to the court, the Government described the assistance rendered by petitioner and moved the court to impose "a sentence lower than what the [c]ourt ha[d] determined to be the otherwise applicable [sic] under the sentencing guidelines." Id., at 13–14. The letter specifically noted that "[t]his motion is made pursuant to Section 5K1.1." Id., at 13. The Government did not request a sentence below the statutory minimum, although, again, it did not state that the Government opposed such a departure. The District Court granted the Government's motion and departed downward from the sentencing range set by the Guidelines. However, because the Government had not also moved the District Court to depart below the statutory minimum pursuant to 18 U. S. C. §3553(e), the court ruled that it had no authority to so depart; it thus imposed the 10-year minimum sentence required by statute.

On appeal, petitioner contended that the District Court had erred in concluding that it had no authority to depart below the statutory minimum. A §5K1.1 motion, he argued, not only allows the court to depart downward from the sentencing level set by the Guidelines but also permits the court to depart below a lower statutory minimum. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §5K1.1, p. s. (Nov. 1995) (USSG). A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected that argument and affirmed the 10-year sentence. 55 F. 3d 130 (1995). A petition for rehearing was denied, with six judges dissenting.

As we noted in Wade v. United States, 504 U. S. 181, 185 (1992), the Courts of Appeals disagree as to whether a Government motion attesting to the defendant's substantial assistance and requesting that the district court depart below the minimum of the applicable sentencing range under the Guidelines also permits the district court to depart below any statutory minimum.

We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 516 U. S. ___ (1995). We now hold that such a motion does not authorize a departure below a lower statutory minimum.

The question presented involves two subsections of federal statutes and a policy statement of the Guidelines. Title 18 U. S. C. §3553(e) provides:

"(e) Limited authority to impose a sentence below a statutory minimum.—Upon motion of the Government, the court shall have the authority to impose a sentence below a level established by statute as minimum sentence so as to reflect a defendant's substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense. Such sentence shall be imposed in accordance with the guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code."

Title 28 U. S. C. §994(n), in turn, states:

"(n) The Commission shall assure that the guidelines reflect the general appropriateness of imposing a lower sentence than would otherwise be imposed, including a sentence that is lower than that established by statute as a minimum sentence, to take into account a defendant's substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense."

Finally, the text of §5K1.1 of the Guidelines provides:

"§5K1.1.	Substantial Assistance to Authorities (Policy Statement)

"Upon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense, the court may depart from the guidelines.

"(a) The appropriate reduction shall be determined by the court for reasons stated that may include, but are not limited to, consideration of the following: [List of five factors for the court's consideration, including] the government's evaluation of the assistance rendered." USSG §5K1.1.

Petitioner argues that §5K1.1 creates what he calls a "unitary" motion system, in which a motion attesting to the substantial assistance of the defendant and requesting a departure below the Guidelines range also permits a district court to depart below the statutory minimum. The Government views §5K1.1 as establishing a binary motion system, which permits the Government to authorize a departure below the Guidelines range while withholding from the court the authority to depart below a lower statutory minimum. The parties argue, naturally, that their respective interpretations of the system actually adopted by the Sentencing Commission were permissible ones under §3553(e) and §994(n).

We believe that §3553(e) requires a Government motion requesting or authorizing the district court to "impose a sentence below a level established by statute as minimum sentence" before the court may impose such a sentence. Petitioner and his amici repeatedly characterize the motion required by §3553(e) as a "motion that substantial assistance has occurred," Brief for Petitioner 12, a "motion acknowledging the defendant's `substan- tial assistance,'" id., at 8, and the like. But the term "motion" generally means "[a]n application made to a court or judge for purpose of obtaining a rule or order directing some act to be done in favor of the applicant." Black's Law Dictionary 1013 (6th ed. 1990). Papers simply "acknowledging" substantial assistance are not sufficient if they do not indicate desire for, or consent to, a sentence below the statutory minimum.

Of course, the Government did more than simply "acknowledge" substantial assistance here: it moved the court to impose a sentence below the Guideline range. But we agree with the Government that nothing in §3553(e) suggests that a district court has power to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum to reflect a defendant's cooperation when the Government has not authorized such a sentence, but has instead moved for a departure only from the applicable Guidelines range. Nor does anything in §3553(e) or §994(n) suggest that the Commission itself may dispense with §3553(e)'s motion requirement, or alternatively, "deem" a motion requesting or authorizing different action—such as a departure below the Guidelines minimum—to be a motion authorizing the district court to depart below the statutory minimum.

Moreover, we do not read §5K1.1 as attempting to exercise this nonexistent authority. Section 5K1.1 says: "Upon motion of the government stating that the de- fendant has provided substantial assistance . . . the court may depart from the guidelines," while its Application Note 1 says: "Under circumstances set forth in 18 U. S. C. §3553(e) and 28 U. S. C. §994(n) . . . substantial assistance . . . may justify a sentence below a statutorily required minimum sentence," §5K1.1, comment., n. 1. One of the circumstances set forth in §3553(e) is, as we have explained previously, that the Government has authorized the court to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum.

Petitioner and his amici argue that §3553(e) requires a sentence below the statutory minimum to be imposed in "accordance" with the Guidelines; that §994(n) specifically directs the Commission to draft a provision covering substantial assistance cases, including cases in which a sentence below a statutory minimum is warranted; and that if §5K1.1 is not read as creating a unitary motion system, then the Commission has improperly failed to meet its obligation, because no other provision of the Guidelines implements §3553(e) and §994(n). They also argue (1) that the reference to §3553(e) in §5K1.1's Application Note 1 indicates that §5K1.1 is a "conduit" established by the Commission for "implementation" of §3553(e); (2) that Application Note 2's use of the broad term "sentencing reduction," rather than "departure from the guidelines range," supports petitioner's view that §5K1.1 authorizes departures below a statutory minimum; (3) that Application Note 3 makes sense only on the assumption that the district court retains "full discretionary power" over the extent of the sentencing reduction (i.e., the authority to choose any sentence once the Government makes any motion confirming the defendant's substantial assistance); (4) that the reference to §5K1.1 alone (rather than to §3553(e)) in USSG §2D1.1's Application Note 7 further supports petitioner's claim that §5K1.1 is a conduit for implementation of §3553(e); and (5) that if the factors described in §5K1.1(a) limiting the district court's discretion do not apply to sentences imposed after the Government moves to depart below the statutory minimum, then the district court's discretion will be wholly unlimited in those circumstances.

In the Government's view, §3553(e) already gives the district court authority to depart below the statutory minimum on motion to do so by the prosecutor. The Government urges us to read the last sentence of §3553(e), and the inclusion of the phrase "including a sentence that is lower than that established by statute as a minimum sentence" in §994(n), as merely requiring the Commission to constrain the district court's discretion in choosing a sentence after the Government moves to depart below the statutory minimum. The Government contends that the first paragraph of §5K1.1 does not authorize departures below the statutory minimum, but that §5K1.1(a) does apply to sentences imposed after the Government moves to depart below the statutory minimum (as well as to sentences imposed after the Government moves to depart below the Guidelines range); §5K1.1(a) thus implements the requirements of §3553(e) and §994(n) that relate to sentences below the statutory minimum, by requiring the district court to consider the factors listed in §5K1.1(a) (1)–(5) in determining the appropriate extent of a departure below the statutory minimum. According to the Government, the difficulties and gaps referred to by petitioner vanish once §5K1.1(a) is so construed.

We agree with the Government that the relevant parts of the statutes merely charge the Commission with constraining the district court's discretion in choosing a specific sentence after the Government moves for a departure below the statutory minimum. Congress did not charge the Commission with "implementing" §3553(e)'s Government motion requirement, beyond adopting provisions constraining the district court's discretion regarding the particular sentence selected.

Although the various relevant Guidelines provisions invoked by the parties could certainly be clearer, we also believe that the Government's interpretation of the current provisions is the better one. Section 5K1.1(a) may guide the district court when it selects a sentence below the statutory minimum, as well when it selects a sentence below the Guidelines range. The Commission has not, however, improperly attempted to dispense with or modify the requirement for a departure below the statutory minimum spelled out in §3553(e)—that of a Government motion requesting or authorizing a departure below the statutory minimum.

The Government has made no such motion here. Hence, the District Court correctly concluded that it lacked the authority to sentence petitioner to less than 10 years' imprisonment.

What is at stake in the long run is whether the Government can make a motion authorizing the district court to depart below the Guidelines range but withholding from the district court the power to depart below the statutory minimum. Although the Government contends correctly that the Commission does not have authority to "deem" a Government motion that does not authorize a departure below the statutory minimum to be one that does authorize such a departure, the Government apparently reads §994(n) to permit the Commission to construct a unitary motion system by adjusting the requirements for a departure below the Guidelines minimum—that is, by providing that the district court may depart below the Guidelines range only when the Government is willing to authorize the court to depart below the statutory minimum, if the court finds that to be appropriate. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 26–31.

We need not decide whether the Commission could create this second type of unitary motion system, for two reasons. First, even if the Commission had done so, that would not help petitioner, since the Government has not authorized a departure below the statutory minimum here. Second, we agree with the Government that the Commission has not adopted this type of unitary motion system. Neither the text of §5K1.1 nor its commentary expressly limits the authority of the court to depart below the Guidelines minimum to situations in which the Government has moved to depart below the statutory minimum. The text of §5K1.1 says: "Upon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance . . . , the court may depart from the guidelines." We do not read this sentence to say: "Upon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance . . . and authorizing the court to depart below the statutory minimum, if any, the court may depart from the guidelines." Rather, we read it as permitting the district court to depart below the Guidelines range when the Government states that the defendant has provided substantial assistance and requests or authorizes the district court to depart below the Guidelines range. As we have noted, supra, at 7–10, the Application Notes to §5K1.1 and §2D1.1 do not compel any other reading.

The judgment is affirmed.

It is so ordered.