UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4287 DERRICK DELMAR WIDEMAN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-124) Submitted: August 26, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997 Before HALL, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL C. Carlyle Steele, Jr., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Derrick Delmar Wideman appeals the 188-month career offender sentence he received after he pled guilty to possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1981 & Supp. 1997). Wideman contends that the district court erred in findingthat the terms of his oral plea agreement did not require the government to move for a substantial assistance departure. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 5K1.1 (1996). We affirm.In return for Wideman's guilty plea, the government agreed to dismiss other charges against him and, if he provided assistance which the government deemed to be substantial, to move for a downward departure. At the sentencing hearing, the government disclosed thatit would not move for a departure. In response to Wideman's objection that he had cooperated and made a controlled purchase of drugsleading to an arrest, the government called a police officer who testified that, while Wideman was on bond from state drug charges, he made one controlled purchase of narcotics which led to an arrest. However, the officer testified that Wideman failed to stay in contact with him and was subsequently arrested for another drug offense. After he was detained on federal charges, Wideman tried to obtain his release on bond by falsely stating that his mother had died. B ecause of his unreliability, Wideman was not asked to provide any further assistance. Wideman argues that he provided substantial assistance when he made the controlled drug purchase and that the government breachedthe oral plea agreement by refusing to move for a departure. However, the government promised to move for a departure only if it deemed that Wideman's assistance was substantial, thus retaining the discretion to make that determination. The government fulfilled its part of the agreement simply by making its determination known to the district court. The district court had no authority to depart in the absence of a substantial showing of unconstitutional motive or other motive lacking a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose. See Wade v. United States , 504 U.S. 181, 186 (1992). Wideman made
2no showing of either; consequently, the district court did not err in refusing to depart.The sentence is accordingly affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3