United States v. Wright , 193 F. App'x 220 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7662
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BRIAN WRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-01-828-HMH-7)
Submitted: July 26, 2006 Decided: August 8, 2006
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Brian Wright, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s denial of his pro se motion to compel the Government to
file a motion for reduction in sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.
P. 35(b). We affirm.
Wright pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that
contained a provision whereby the Government would “move the Court
to depart from the United States Sentencing Guidelines, pursuant to
§ 5K1.1 of those Guidelines, and Title 18, United States Code,
Section 3553(e) and/or move the Court for reduction of sentence
pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
Wright asserts that prior to sentencing, the Government approached
him, explaining that his assistance was not complete until his
co-defendants had been apprehended and convicted. Wright further
alleges that the Government promised to file a Rule 35(b) motion if
Wright’s co-defendants were captured and pled or were found guilty
within one year after his sentence. Wright claims that because
this motion has not been filed, the Government has breached the
plea agreement. We disagree.
On the day of Wright’s sentencing, the Government filed
a Motion for Downward Departure pursuant to USSG § 5K1.1 and 18
U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2000), that requested the court to depart
downward in response to Wright’s substantial assistance. The
motion noted that Wright’s cooperation was responsible for the
- 2 -
decision of “five of his co-defendants to plead ‘guilty’ to the
conspiracy charges contained in the indictment.” We conclude the
plea agreement required no more. By its explicit terms, the
agreement simply did not obligate the Government to file a Rule 35
motion regardless of the extent of Wright’s assistance. Moreover,
neither the record nor any other documentation supports Wright’s
assertion that the plea agreement was amended to require the
Government to file a Rule 35 motion. We therefore find that the
Government fully fulfilled its obligations. Accordingly, we
affirm. We dispense 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
- 3 -