Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adeodato IBARRA-ALCAREZ, also known as Cesar Islas-Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-06
Citations: 672 F. App'x 473
Docket Number: No. 15-51156 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adeodato IBARRA-ALCAREZ, also known as Cesar Islas-Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 473–474

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adeodato IBARRA-ALCAREZ, also known as Cesar Islas-Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-51156 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed January 6, 2017
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Adeodato Ibarra-Alcarez, Pro Se
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Adeodato Ibarra-Alcarez, federal prisoner # 15151-086, is serving a 293-month sentence after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and three counts of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute. He appeals the district court's denial of his motion to compel the Government to file a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). Ibarra-Alcarez argues that the Government was required to file a Rule 35(b) motion based upon his substantial assis tance in providing information that led to the apprehension of drug traffickers.
Ibarra-Alcarez does not argue that the Government's refusal to file a Rule 35(b) motion was based on an unconstitutional motive. See 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 a Rule 35(b) or bargained away its discretion concerning whether to file a Rule 35(b) motion. See United States v. Price, 95 F.3d 364, 368-69 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1996). Ibarra-Alcarez's motion to compel "was unauthorized and without a jurisdictional basis." United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.