Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ikeski DECKARD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-16
Citations: 115 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: No. 04-40039
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ikeski DECKARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 225–226

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ikeski DECKARD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40039.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 16, 2004.
Lisa G. Flournoy, Lufkin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ikeski Deckard, Seagoville, TX, pro se.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ikeski Deckard, federal prisoner No. 08146-078, appeals the district court's denial of his motion for reduction of sentence based on substantial assistance, purportedly filed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b).
A motion for reduction of a defendant's sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b) must be filed by the Government. United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141 (5th Cir.1994). The Government's refusal to move for a reduction of sentence is unreviewable by the district court absent a "substantial threshold showing" that the decision is based on an unconstitutional motive. Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185- 86, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992) (reviewing Government's refusal to file a motion pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K1.1). Deckard does not allege that the Government's decision not to file a Rule 35(b) motion in his case was based on an unconstitutional motive. Deckard's Rule 35(b) motion was thus "an unauthorized motion which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain." Early, 27 F.3d at 142.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.