Court Opinion

ID: 999499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:26:34.276829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:13:12.658651
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 98-4305

RODNEY H. WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
(CR-97-583)

Submitted: July 27, 1999

Decided: August 16, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MICHAEL,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David P. McCann, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene
Josey, United States Attorney, Scott N. Schools, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Williams appeals his sentence.* Williams and his wife
pled guilty to one count of bank robbery by force or violence, 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (1994), and one count of using and carrying a
handgun during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 924(c) (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). Williams contends that the dis-
trict court erred in determining that it did not have the authority to
depart from the sentencing guidelines based upon his alleged substan-
tial assistance. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 5K1.1
(1997). We affirm.

District courts do not have the authority to depart from the sentenc-
ing guidelines based upon substantial assistance in the absence of a
Government motion unless the Government's reluctance to file the
§ 5K1.1 motion is based upon an unconstitutional motive or not ratio-
nally related to a legitimate Government end. See Wade v. United
States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-87 (1992); United States v. Schaefer, 120
F.3d 505, 508-09 (4th Cir. 1997); see also In re Sealed Case No. 97-
3112 (Sentencing Guidelines' "Substantial Assistance"), ___ F.3d
___, 1999 WL 462422 (D.C. Cir. July 9, 1999) (No. 97-3112).

Because Williams did not assert that the Government's motive for
not filing a § 5K1.1 motion was unconstitutional or not rationally
related to a legitimate end, we affirm the district court's judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*This appeal was remanded to the district court with instructions to
make factual findings concerning whether there was excusable neglect
warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. See United States
v. Williams, No. 98-4303 (4th Cir. Jan. 19, 1999) (unpublished). The dis-
trict court found that there was excusable neglect and extended the time
period in which to file the notice of appeal.

                    2