Court Opinion

ID: 993051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:01:52.893743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:37.802156
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 finding
that the terms of his oral plea agreement did not require the govern-
ment 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 dis-
miss 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 that
it would not move for a departure. In response to Wideman's objec-
tion that he had cooperated and made a controlled purchase of drugs
leading to an arrest, the government called a police officer who testi-
fied 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. Because
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 breached
the oral plea agreement by refusing to move for a departure. How-
ever, 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

                    2
no showing of either; consequently, the district court did not err in
refusing to depart.

The sentence is accordingly affirmed. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3