Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10690/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10690-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randy Harris
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 26, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10690

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RANDY HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:92-CR-289-H

--------------------

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Randy Harris, federal prisoner # 23373-077, appeals the

district court’s denial of his motion for downward departure

relating to the sentence imposed following his 1992 jury conviction

for conspiracy to commit extortion, extortion, conspiracy to

distribute cocaine base, and distribution of cocaine base.

To the extent Harris relies on U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, his argument

is misplaced. U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 operates upon Government motion at

the time of original sentencing. United States v. Mitchell, 964

 Case: 03-10690 Document: 0051165304 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2004
2

F.2d 454, 461 (5th Cir. 1992). The Government has filed no such

motion, and Harris is not authorized under the Guidelines to bring

such a motion. See U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1.

Harris argues that he has provided substantial assistance to

the Government and that the Government’s refusal to file a downward

departure motion pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. PRO. 35(b) is

unconstitutionally motivated. Harris’ arguments are vague and are

not the “substantial threshold showing” of unconstitutional

motivation that is required before the district court can consider

a defendant’s FED. R. CRIM. PRO. 35(b) motion. See United States v.

Sneed, 63 F.3d 381, 389 n.6 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Harris failed

to make a substantial showing of unconstitutional motivation, the

district court was without authority to consider Harris’ Rule 35(b)

motion. See id.

Additionally, Harris has failed to brief whether the district

court erred when it failed to hold the evidentiary hearing that he

requested and when it did not grant relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(e) and U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, both of which were cited in his

district court pleadings. This court “will not raise and discuss

legal issues that [Harris] has failed to assert.” Brinkmann v.

Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987). Harris has abandoned these issues on appeal because he has

not addressed these issues. E.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

 Case: 03-10690 Document: 0051165304 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2004
3

Harris has thus filed an appeal from a denial of an

unauthorized motion that the district court was without

jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d

140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Although the district court denied the

motion on the merits, we may affirm on the alternative basis that

the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Harris’ motion.

Id.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-10690 Document: 0051165304 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/26/2004