Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04098/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04098-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Raymond Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4098

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RAYMOND WALKER, a/k/a Raymond Walker, Jr.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (2:06-cr-00528)

Submitted: January 10, 2008 Decided: January 31, 2008

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert P. Shahid, Jr., SHAHID LAW OFFICE, LLC, Charleston, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States

Attorney, Alston C. Badger, Assistant United States Attorney,

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4098 Doc: 36 Filed: 01/31/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Raymond Walker pled guilty

to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D) (2000), and using and carrying a

firearm during and in relation to, and possessing a firearm in

furtherance of, a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18

U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2007). The district court

sentenced Walker to ninety months in prison. Walker timely

appealed.

Walker first contends that the district court erred in

accepting his guilty plea. Because Walker did not seek to withdraw

his guilty plea in the district court and points to no errors in

the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we find that the district court

did not plainly err in accepting his guilty plea. United States v.

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing standard).

In addition, Walker argues that the district court erred

by failing to downwardly depart from the guideline range pursuant

to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.13 (2005), based on his

diminished capacity. A district court’s failure to grant a

downward departure is not reviewable unless the court was under the

mistaken impression that it lacked the authority to depart. United

States v. Matthews, 208 F.3d 338, 352 (4th Cir. 2000); see also

United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 333 (3d Cir. 2006)

(collecting cases declining to review district court’s decision not

to depart, even after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005)). Because Walker did not request a departure, the district

Appeal: 07-4098 Doc: 36 Filed: 01/31/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

court did not consider a departure based on his diminished capacity

and thus did not make any decisions concerning its authority to

depart on that ground. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review

the district court’s failure to depart sua sponte.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 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: 07-4098 Doc: 36 Filed: 01/31/2008 Pg: 3 of 3