Court Opinion

ID: 993304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:05:48.991879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:01.262761
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                       No. 96-4869

CECIL LEVON DOVE, a/k/a Rocky,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge.
(CR-96-110)

Submitted: September 30, 1997

Decided: October 21, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Manuel L. Costa, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter
C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Richard S. Glaser, Jr., Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appel-
lee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Cecil Levon Dove appeals his fifty-two month sentence
imposed after he pled guilty to one count of attempting to possess
1000 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute. On appeal, Dove
asserts that the district court erred by not forcing the Government to
file a motion for downward departure based on his alleged substantial
assistance, or, in the alternative, by not sua sponte granting him a
downward departure. Dove further asserts that the district court erred
by not sentencing him at the bottom of the Guidelines* range, despite
the Government's recommendation to do so. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.

Dove was apprehended after he attempted to purchase cocaine from
an undercover agent. Pursuant to his plea agreement, Dove provided
the Government with information. However, the Government
informed the court at sentencing that it did not consider the informa-
tion to be substantial assistance. As a result, the Government declined
to make a motion for downward departure pursuant to USSG § 5K1.1.
Despite the Government's recommendation to sentence Dove at the
low end of the Guidelines range, the district court sentenced him in
the mid-range.

Absent an express provision in a plea agreement, which is not pres-
ent here, a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to
a motion for downward departure pursuant to USSG§ 5K1.1. See
United States v. Francois, 889 F.2d 1341, 1344 (4th Cir. 1989). The
Government has wide discretion in this area, and the district court has
no authority to depart downward for substantial assistance absent
such a motion. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185 (1992);
United States v. Maddox, 48 F.3d 791, 795 (4th Cir. 1995). Dove does
not assert that the Government's refusal was based on constitutionally
impermissible factors, and no such factors appear on the face of the
record. Finally, we will not review a sentence which falls within a
properly calculated sentencing range. See United States v. Porter, 909
F.2d 789, 794-95 (4th Cir. 1990).
_________________________________________________________________
*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1996).

                    2
We therefore affirm Dove's conviction and sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the material before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                   3