Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maxon Harvey MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-25
Citations: 439 F. App'x 348
Docket Number: No. 11-30156
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maxon Harvey MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 348–349

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maxon Harvey MORGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-30156
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 25, 2011.
Brian Patrick Marcelle, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen Andrew Higginson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Maxon Harvey Morgan, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Maxon Harvey Morgan, federal prisoner #239980-034, appeals the district court's denial of his motion to compel the Government to file a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the denial of his discovery motion under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Morgan argues that the Government was required to file a motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Proce dure based on his substantial assistance in providing information in the criminal prosecution of another individual. He does not argue that the Government's refusal to file a Rule 35 motion was based on an unconstitutional motive. See, e.g., United States v. Grant, 493 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir.2007). He has also failed to show that the Government either was compelled to file or bargained away its discretion concerning whether to file a Rule 35 motion. See United States v. Price, 95 F.3d 364, 368 n. 2 (5th Cir.1996).
Morgan's motion to compel was "an unauthorized motion which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain." United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Morgan's motion to compel and related discovery motion. See Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 769 n. 3 (5th Cir.2009), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3368, 176 L.Ed.2d 1254 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.