Opinion
ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
On December 16, 2013, and December 17, 2014, the government submitted for in camera consideration 5k1.1 letters in connection with the sentencing of Defendants Robert Duncan and Lynn Smith, respectively. The December 16, 2013 letter includes the following statement: "Determining what to use as the base for the sentencing reduction in this case is complicated both by the unsettled nature of the Guideline calculations and by the fact that the most culpable defendant (Davies) received the (below guideline) five year prison sentence recommended by the government." The December 17, 2013 letter includes the following language: "considering the sentence given to codefendant Davies."
The referenced statements should have been filed and explained in a public proceeding, rather than presented to the judge for secret, in camera consideration. Although it is recognized that for certain matters in camera court review is routinely considered consistent with asssertions of the need for secrecy, here the import of the referenced statements is unclear, and the need for secrecy concerning those statements has not been explained.
It appears evvident that including the referenced statements in the 5K1.1 leetters is an inappropriate use of the inn camera proceedings the government has invoked. See Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978); Matter of Sealed Affidavit(s), 600 F.2d 1256, 1257 (9th Cir. 1979) ("[C]ouurts have inherent power, as an incident of their constitutional function, to control papers filed with the courts within certain constitutional and other limitations."). Since it is evident the government relies upon these statements for sentencing, they are made public herein.