Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharon Sharpe CAMPBELL-ALLISON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-11
Citations: 176 F. App'x 470
Docket Number: No. 04-60859
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharon Sharpe CAMPBELL-ALLISON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 470–470

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharon Sharpe CAMPBELL-ALLISON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-60859.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 11, 2006.
Ruth R. Morgan, Gaines H. Cleveland, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sharon Sharpe Campbell-Allison, Marianna, FL, pro se.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sharon Sharpe Campbell-Allison, federal inmate # 03811-043, was convicted on her plea of guilty to a charge of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Campbell-Allison appeals the district court's denial of her motion to compel the Government to move pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 35(b) for a reduction of sentence based on her substantial assistance.
The district court construed Campbell-Allison's motion as arising under Rule 35(b). A motion for reduction of a 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 not renewable 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). Campbell-Allison has not made such a showing.
Campbell-Allison's motion 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.