United States v. Matthews , 404 F. App'x 749 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-7223
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    MICHAEL F. MATTHEWS,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge. (3:07-cr-00226-REP-1)
    Submitted:   November 10, 2010           Decided:   December 10, 2010
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael F. Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Matthews appeals the district court’s denial
    of    his   motion          to    compel       specific         performance            and       motion    for
    reconsideration.              Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
    Matthews pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute more
    than    fifty         grams       of     cocaine      base      and        was       sentenced        to   480
    months’      imprisonment.                   The    Government         filed          a     motion     for    a
    reduction        of        sentence          pursuant      to    Federal             Rule    of      Criminal
    Procedure 35(b) (“Rule 35”), which the district court granted,
    reducing         Matthews’s             sentence        to      300        months’          imprisonment.
    Matthews filed a Motion to Compel Specific Performance, asking
    the    court          to    compel       the       Government         to     consider            additional
    instances of Matthews’s substantial assistance.                                             The district
    court denied the motion as moot.                             Matthews then filed a Motion
    for Reconsideration, arguing that his original motion was not
    moot because it outlined different facts than the Government’s
    Rule 35 motion.                   The district court denied the motion on the
    ground      that       Matthews         lacked      standing          to    seek       a    reduction        in
    sentence under Rule 35.
    On    appeal,          Matthews       argues      that      the          district      court
    erred    when         it    declined          to   compel       the    Government               to   consider
    additional instances of cooperation that it did not include in
    its    original            Rule    35    motion.           We   review           a    district        court’s
    denial      of    a        motion       to    compel       under      an    abuse          of    discretion
    2
    standard.           Wells v. Liddy, 
    186 F.3d 505
    , 518 n.12 (4th Cir.
    1999).       Plea agreements are grounded in contract law, and both
    parties should receive the benefit of their bargain.                                         United
    States v. Bowe, 
    257 F.3d 336
    , 345 (4th Cir. 2001).                                 Because of
    constitutional and supervisory concerns, the Government is held
    to     a    greater        degree    of   responsibility             for    imprecision         or
    ambiguities in plea agreements.                      United States v. Harvey, 
    791 F.2d 294
    ,    300-01     (4th    Cir.   1986).            Where       an    agreement       is
    ambiguous in its terms, the terms must be construed against the
    Government.            
    Id. at 300, 303
    .         However, “[w]hile the government
    must be held to the promises it made, it will not be bound to
    those it did not make.”                   United States v. Fentress, 
    792 F.2d 461
    , 464-65 (4th Cir. 1986).
    Here,     the     Government           was     under      no    enforceable
    obligation pursuant to the plea agreement.                           The agreement merely
    states that the Government “reserves the right to seek . . . any
    reduction         of   sentence      pursuant       to    Rule    35(b)     of    the    Federal
    Rules of Criminal Procedure, if, in its sole discretion, the
    United States determines that such a departure or reduction of
    sentence          is      appropriate.”         Thus,          the    decision          of    what
    constituted substantial assistance for purposes of the Rule 35
    motion fell squarely within the Government’s discretion.
    3
    Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not
    abuse       its   discretion    in        denying   Matthews’s      motions. *     We
    therefore affirm the district court’s orders.                      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
    *
    See MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 
    303 F.3d 532
    , 536 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e are entitled to affirm the
    court’s judgment on alternate grounds, if such grounds are
    apparent from the record.”).
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-7223

Citation Numbers: 404 F. App'x 749

Judges: Shedd, Duncan, Wynn

Filed Date: 12/10/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024