context: Seventh, while the defendants fault the government for failing to explain the specific reasons for disbelieving them, it is Defendants' burden, not the government's, to make a "substantial" showing that the departure decision was irrational. Normally the general statement of a prosecutor or law enforcement officer that a defendant was unbelievable or unreliable is a sufficient reason to deny a defense motion to compel the government to file a motion for downward departure.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 90 F.3d 255, 259
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that it was not error to deny a motion for an evidentiary hearing regarding a defense motion to compel the government to file a departure motion where, among other things, "the FBI questioned [the defendant's] candor____"
citation_a.sentence: United States v. Nicolace, 90 F.3d 255, 259 (8th Cir.1996) (holding that it was not error to deny a motion for an evidentiary hearing regarding a defense motion to compel the government to file a departure motion where, among other things, “the FBI questioned [the defendant’s] candor____”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 90 F.3d 1332, 1339
citation_b.parenthetical: the defendant was not entitled to reduction of the sentence for substantial assistance where, among other things, the prosecutor told the district judge that "the assistance ... turned, out to be unreliable."
citation_b.sentence: See also United States v. Johnigan, 90 F.3d 1332, 1339 (8th Cir.1996) (the defendant was not entitled to reduction of the sentence for substantial assistance where, among other things, the prosecutor told the district judge that “the assistance ... turned, out to be unreliable.”)