United States v. Williams

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4305

RODNEY H. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CR-97-583)

Submitted: July 27, 1999

Decided: August 16, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David P. McCann, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Scott N. Schools, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Williams appeals his sentence.* Williams and his wife pled guilty to one count of bank robbery by force or violence, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (1994), and one count of using and carrying a handgun during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). Williams contends that the dis- trict court erred in determining that it did not have the authority to depart from the sentencing guidelines based upon his alleged substan- tial assistance. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 5K1.1 (1997). We affirm.

District courts do not have the authority to depart from the sentenc- ing guidelines based upon substantial assistance in the absence of a Government motion unless the Government's reluctance to file the § 5K1.1 motion is based upon an unconstitutional motive or not ratio- nally related to a legitimate Government end. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-87 (1992); United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505, 508-09 (4th Cir. 1997); see also In re Sealed Case No. 97- 3112 (Sentencing Guidelines' "Substantial Assistance"), ___ F.3d ___, 1999 WL 462422 (D.C. Cir. July 9, 1999) (No. 97-3112).

Because Williams did not assert that the Government's motive for not filing a § 5K1.1 motion was unconstitutional or not rationally related to a legitimate end, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED _________________________________________________________________ *This appeal was remanded to the district court with instructions to make factual findings concerning whether there was excusable neglect warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. See United States v. Williams, No. 98-4303 (4th Cir. Jan. 19, 1999) (unpublished). The dis- trict court found that there was excusable neglect and extended the time period in which to file the notice of appeal.