Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0473-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adeodato IBARRA-ALCAREZ, also known as Cesar Islas-Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-51156 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed January 6, 2017
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Adeodato Ibarra-Alcarez, Pro Se
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Adeodato Ibarra-Alcarez, federal prisoner # 15151-086, is serving a 293-month sentence after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and three counts of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to compel the Government to file a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). Ibarra-Alcarez argues that the Government was required to file a Rule 35(b) motion based upon his substantial assistance in providing information that led to the apprehension of drug traffickers.

Ibarra-Alcarez does not argue that the Government’s refusal to file a Rule 35(b) motion was based on an unconstitutional motive. See United States v. Grant, 493 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2007). He has also failed to show that the Government either was compelled to file a Rule 35(b) or bargained away its discretion concerning whether to file a Rule 35(b) motion. See United States v. Price, 95 F.3d 364, 368-69 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1996). Ibarra-Alcarez’s motion to compel “was unauthorized and without a jurisdictional basis.” United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.