United States v. Haselden ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 95-5610
CHARLES EVERETT HASELDEN, a/k/a
Sonny,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
(CR-94-593)
Submitted: October 29, 1996
Decided: December 17, 1996
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Gregory P. Harris, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene
Josey, United States Attorney, David J. Slattery, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine. Pursuant to the plea
agreement, the Government administered a polygraph examination
prior to sentencing, which Appellant failed. Appellant also failed a
second polygraph examination. The plea agreement further provided
that if Appellant failed to fulfill any of his obligations under the
agreement, including the promise to successfully complete a poly-
graph examination, the Government would, at its option, be relieved
of any or all of its obligations under the agreement.
Both parties acknowledge that the Government assented in an oral
agreement not to institute a civil in rem forfeiture action against
Appellant's farm if Appellant complied with the terms of the written
agreement. Appellant argues on appeal that the Government breached
the terms of the oral plea agreement when it instituted the civil in rem
forfeiture action against his farm. We hold that Appellant fails to
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Government
breached the plea agreement. See United States v. Conner, 930 F.2d
1073, 1076 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 958 (1991). In fact, the
Government's action was completely consistent with the terms of the
agreements. Appellant promised to successfully complete a polygraph
examination, and he failed to do so. Pursuant to the terms of the plea
agreement, this relieved the Government of its promise not to institute
a civil in rem forfeiture action against Appellant's farm.
Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's conviction and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the material before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2