United States v. Sturgess ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4687
EDISON ARTHUR STURGESS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-78)
Submitted: March 30, 1999
Decided: June 14, 1999
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Robert A.
J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Car-
olina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Edison Sturgess, Jr. appeals from a district court judgment order
entered pursuant to his guilty plea to drug trafficking offenses. Stur-
gess contends that the district court erred by failing to grant his
request for a downward departure at sentencing based on substantial
assistance to the government, despite the absence of a government
motion for departure. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual,
§ 5K1.1 (1994). Sturgess concedes that the district court's action
comports with prior Fourth Circuit precedent, but asks this Court to
overrule such precedent, and hold that, in light of the Supreme
Court's decision in Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996), depar-
tures under § 5K1.1 are not dependent on the filing of a government
motion.
We have held, subsequent to Koon, that a downward departure
based on substantial assistance requires a government motion. See
United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505, 508 (4th Cir. 1997). More-
over, one panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of another
panel. See Jones v. Angelone, 94 F.3d 900, 905 (4th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, we decline Sturgess' invitation to overrule our own pre-
cedent, and affirm the judgment order of the district court. 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.
AFFIRMED
2