United States v. Billy Crawford, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6079
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BILLY RAY CRAWFORD, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:05-cr-00470-TLW-1)
Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy Ray Crawford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Billy Ray Crawford, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to reduce sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P.
35(b) or U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1, p.s.
Crawford argues on appeal that the Government obligated itself
in the plea agreement to move for a downward departure for his
substantial assistance. We affirm.
It is well-settled that whether to file a Rule 35(b) motion
is a matter left to the Government’s discretion. Fed. R. Crim.
P. 35(b); United States v. Dixon, 998 F.2d 228, 230 (4th Cir.
1993). A court may remedy the Government’s refusal to move for
a sentence reduction under Rule 35(b) if: (1) the Government
has obligated itself in the plea agreement to move for the
reduction; or (2) the Government’s refusal to move for the
reduction was based on an unconstitutional motive. Wade v.
United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992).
After review of the record, we conclude that neither
circumstance is present here. The plea agreement between
Crawford and the Government clearly establishes that the
decision whether to file a Rule 35(b) motion rested with the
Government’s discretion, and Crawford did not claim in the
motion to reduce sentence that the Government’s refusal to file
a Rule 35(b) motion was based on an unconstitutional motive.
2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3