Court Opinion

ID: 1000980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:48:50.667261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:27.422700
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 99-4477

JEANNIE KAY REED,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District Judge.
(CR-98-29)

Submitted: December 29, 1999

Decided: March 1, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

C. Randall Lowe, TATE, LOWE & ROWLETT, Abingdon, Virginia,
for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Anthony
P. Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jeannie Kay Reed was convicted pursuant to her guilty plea of con-
spiracy to distribute marijuana. On appeal, Reed alleges that the dis-
trict court considered improper factors in refusing to grant a further
downward departure based on her substantial assistance to the Gov-
ernment. Reed also alleges that the district court should have granted
an additional downward departure because her criminal history score
overstated the seriousness of her past criminal conduct. Because the
district court's decisions are not reviewable, we dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.

Reed and her husband were convicted for their part in a drug con-
spiracy, and Reed was initially sentenced to the statutory minimum
of sixty months' imprisonment. Reed provided authorities with signif-
icant information concerning other members of the conspiracy pursu-
ant to her plea agreement. As a result of her contributions, the
Government made a motion for a downward departure under USSG
§ 5K1.11 at sentencing. Reed requested that her sentence be reduced
to simple probation. She also moved for an additional downward
departure based on her criminal history score. After a hearing, the dis-
trict court granted the Government's motion, denied Reed's requests
for further departures, and sentenced her to thirty months'
incarceration.2

Where the district court recognizes that it has the authority to grant
a motion for downward departure, its refusal to do so is not review-
_________________________________________________________________
1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1998).
2 The court noted that Reed had already received significant reductions
as a result of her plea agreement. Contrary to Reed's assertions, we find
nothing improper in the district court's consideration of the benefits she
received under the plea agreement.

                    2
able. See United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 29-31 (4th Cir. 1990).
In the present case, the record clearly shows that the district court rec-
ognized its authority to grant Reed's requests, but felt that further
departures were not warranted.3

We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
_________________________________________________________________
3 See also United States v. Patterson, 38 F.3d 139, 146 (4th Cir. 1994)
(extent of downward departure not subject to review).

                     3