Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04560/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04560-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marvin Darrell Guest
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4560

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARVIN DARRELL GUEST, a/k/a Rail,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (2:03-cr-00126-SB)

Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 14, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Joseph Condon, Jr., CONDON LAW FIRM, North Charleston, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin F. McDonald, Acting United States

Attorney, M. Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney,

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4560 Doc: 43 Filed: 07/14/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
1

The district court granted Guest a late appeal under United

States v. Peak, 992 F.2d 39, 42 (4th Cir. 1993), after he filed a

motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (2000). The court

held Guest’s other claims in abeyance pending this appeal.

Although Guest has completed his prison term, we retain

jurisdiction because he remains on supervised release.

2The government ultimately decided that Guest’s assistance was

not substantial, and did not move pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

35(b) for a reduction based on substantial assistance. Guest

alleged in his § 2255 motion that the government’s decision not to

move for a sentence reduction was arbitrary or made in bad faith.

Because this issue is pending before the district court, we do not

address it.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Darrell Guest pled guilty in 2003 to conspiracy to

commit bank fraud and was sentenced to a term of sixty months

imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He appeals

this sentence,1 contending that he was improperly denied a

departure for substantial assistance, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 5K1.1, p.s. (2002), and a hearing on the issue. We

affirm.

Guest’s plea agreement provided that the government would

move for a departure if his cooperation was deemed substantial by

the government. At his sentencing hearing, Guest’s attorney

acknowledged that his client had been interviewed, but that the

results of his cooperation were as yet unknown, and for that reason

the government would not move for a departure. Both defense

counsel and the government held out hope for a later motion for

sentence reduction.2

Appeal: 07-4560 Doc: 43 Filed: 07/14/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

Unless the government is obligated under the terms of a

plea agreement, its decision as to whether the defendant has

provided substantial assistance is discretionary. United States v.

Snow, 234 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2000). Guest’s plea agreement

leaves the discretion to determine whether he provided substantial

assistance warranting a § 5K1.1 departure with the government.

Guest did not object at sentencing to the government’s decision not

to make a § 5K1.1 motion, and the record does not disclose any

evidence that the government refused to make the motion based on

any unconstitutional motive. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S.

181, 185-86 (1992) (holding that “federal district courts have

authority to review a prosecutor’s refusal to file a substantial

assistance motion and to grant a remedy if they find that the

refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive.”). Further, Guest

has not shown that the government’s decision at sentencing was “not

rationally related to any legitimate Government end.” Id. at 186

(internal citation omitted). 

We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 07-4560 Doc: 43 Filed: 07/14/2008 Pg: 3 of 3