Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-06831/USCOURTS-ca4-06-06831-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Franz Lindsay
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 

No. 06-6831 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

versus 

ANDRE FRANZ LINDSAY, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District 

Judge. (4: 00-cr-00603-CWH-9) 

Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: November 15, 2007 

Before WILKINSON 

Circuit Judge. 

and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Joshua Snow Kendrick, JOSHUA 

Carolina, for Appellant. 

SNOW KENDRICK, 

Reginald I. 

PC, 

Lloyd, 

Columbia, 

United 

South 

States 

Attorney; Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 06-6831 Doc: 10000 Filed: 11/15/2007 Pg: 1 of 3
PER CURIAM: 

Andre Franz Lindsay appeals from the district court's 

order granting the Government's Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion, but 

imposing a zero-month departure. On appeal, Lindsay argues that 

the district court improperly considered his prior substantial 

assistance, for which a departure had already been given, when 

considering the Rule 35(b) motion. The Government argues first 

that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the extent of the 

departure. Further, the Government contends that the district 

court erred in compelling the Government to file the Rule 35(b) 

motion, absent any showing of bad faith or unconstitutional motive. 

We affirm. 

" [A]ppeals from rulings on Rule 35(b) motions are 

governed by 18 U. S . C . § 3742 [2 000] . " United States v. 

Hartwell, 448 F.3d 707, 712 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 

328 (2006). We do not have "jurisdiction to review the extent of 

the district court's downward departure, except in instances in 

which the departure decision resulted in a sentence imposed in 

violation of law or resulted from an incorrect application of the 

Guidelines." United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir. 

1995) (emphasis in original) However, if a defendant "alleg[es] 

that his otherwise final sentence was imposed in violation of law 

[h]e may make that claim in appealing a ruling on a Rule 

35(b) motion." Hartwell, 448 F.3d at 713. Lindsay's claim that 

- 2 ­

Appeal: 06-6831 Doc: 10000 Filed: 11/15/2007 Pg: 2 of 3
the district court erred in considering information other than his 

post-sentence cooperation amounts to a claim that he was sentenced 

in violation of law. Therefore, we have jurisdiction to hear his 

appeal. 

Turning to the meri ts of his appeal, Lindsay alleges that 

the district court erroneously considered a prior substantial 

assistance departure pursuant to u.s. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 

§ 5K1.1 (2004), and his sentence as a whole, instead of focusing 

only on his post-sentencing assistance. While the sentencing court 

may not grant a substantial assistance departure, or augment such 

a departure based on factors other than assistance, it may consider 

other factors to limit the departure. See United States v. Doe, 

351 F.3d 929, 932-33 (9th Cir. 2003). As such, the district court 

did not impose a sentence in violation of law by referring to 

factors other than Lindsay's most recent assistance to explain why 

it did not grant a greater departure. Because this conclusion is 

determinative of this appeal, we decline to address the 

Government's argument that it was improperly ordered to file the 

Rule 35 motion. 

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's 

judgment. 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 

- 3 ­

Appeal: 06-6831 Doc: 10000 Filed: 11/15/2007 Pg: 3 of 3