UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-5184 JAMES A. TOWNSEND, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-441-MJP, CR-94-914-MJP, CR-94-859-MJP) Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: January 12, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Creighton B. Coleman, MCCUTCHEN, BLANTON, RHODES & JOHNSON, L.L.P., Winnsboro, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Preston Strom, Jr., United States Attorney, Dean A. Eichelberger, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Appellant James A. Townsend appeals his sentence for the transportation of fraudulently acquired property under 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1988), 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1341, 2314 (West Supp. 1995). The plea agreement unambiguously provided that if the Government deemed Townsend's assistance to be substantial, the Government would movefor a downward departure. Although Townsend provided some assistance, the Government did not deem the assistance to be substantial, and consequently declined to file a USSG § 5K1.1 (Nov. 1994)motion. Townsend claims the Government breached its plea agreement with Townsend by failing to move for a downward departure in his sentence based on substantial assistance under§ 5K1.1. Townsendclaims the Government's decision was not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. Finding no error, we affirm. A party alleging the breach of a plea agreement bears the burden of proving that breach. United States v. Dixon , 998 F.2d 228, 230 (4thCir. 1993). While a district court generally cannot review the Government's refusal to move for a § 5K1.1 departure, review is necessitated if the defendant makes a "substantial threshold showing" that theGovernment's decision was not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. Wade v. United States , 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992); see United States v. Conner , 930 F.2d 1073 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 958 (1991). The threshold showing must transcend a mere recitation of the assistance provided by the defendant. Wade , 504 U.S. at 186. Townsend fails to make the substantial threshold showing. Rather, he only offers a mere recitation of the extent of his assistance. As the Supreme Court noted in Wade , "[a]lthough a showing of assistance is a necessary condition for relief, it is not a sufficient one." Id. at 187. Thus, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argu-
2ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3