Court Opinion

ID: 1000611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:43:19.534654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:39.699921
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                No. 99-4359

BRANDON KEITH COLLIERS,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                No. 99-4371

KEONTA C. KING,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-29)

Submitted: November 30, 1999

Decided: January 12, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Martin P. Sheehan, Wheeling, West Virginia; James Wyda, Federal
Public Defender, Elizabeth L. Pearl, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellants. David E. Godwin,
United States Attorney, Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Brandon K. Colliers and Keonta C. King pled guilty, pursuant to
separate plea agreements to distribution of crack cocaine. Each
Appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal and raises two issues;
their cases have been consolidated in this court. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm their convictions and sentences.

In his first issue, Colliers alleges that the Government breached its
plea agreement with him. Because Colliers raises this issue for the
first time on appeal, we review this claim for plain error. See United
States v. McQueen, 108 F.3d 64, 65-66 (4th Cir. 1997). We do not
find that the Government breached its plea agreement with Colliers.
Second, Colliers alleges that the district court should have granted
him a downward departure. This claim fails, however, because a
denial of a motion to depart is not reviewable on appeal unless the
district court misunderstood its power to depart. See United States v.
Darby, 37 F.3d 1059, 1068 (4th Cir. 1994).

Similarly, King's allegation that the district court erroneously
denied his motion to depart based upon diminished capacity* is not
reviewable on appeal. See Darby, 37 F.3d at 1068. Finally, we do not
find that the district court clearly erred in determining the amount of
drugs for which King was responsible. See United States v. D'Anjou,
16 F.3d 604, 614 (4th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm the sentence
_________________________________________________________________
*See U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual § 5K2.13, p.s. (1998).

                    2
and conviction for Colliers and for King. 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