United States v. Sumblin

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 95-5647
MARCUS LAMONT SUMBLIN, a/k/a
Christopher Bryson, a/k/a T-90,
a/k/a T, a/k/a T-9,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge.
(CR-94-137)
Submitted: June 20, 1996
Decided: July 17, 1996
Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Jonathan M. Apgar, DAMICO & APGAR, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Ray B. Fitz-
gerald, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Lamont Sumblin seeks to appeal the 100-month sentence
he received after his guilty plea to possession of heroin with intent to
distribute. 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1981 & Supp. 1996). He con-
tends that the district court did not depart far enough below the guide-
line range of 151-188 months in recognition of his substantial
assistance. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines
Manual, § 5K1.1 (Nov. 1994). We dismiss the appeal.
An appeals court lacks jurisdiction to review a defendant's chal-
lenge to the extent of a downward departure unless the departure
resulted in a sentence imposed in violation of law or resulted from an
incorrect application of the guidelines. United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d
321, 322 (4th Cir. 1995). Sumblin alleges that the district court
ignored or failed to understand his addiction to heroin, wrongly
decided that he deliberately chose to use and distribute drugs, and
punished him unjustly by a lesser departure than he had hoped to
receive.
Sumblin had four prior drug convictions and a weapons conviction.
At the sentencing hearing, in response to a question from the district
court, Sumblin acknowledged that he had not used drugs for two
years during his most recent confinement. He said he was not
addicted when he got out of prison, but still had heroin on his mind
because he had received no drug counseling and immediately
resumed his old behavior. The district court commented that such
conduct was not impressive, but gave Sumblin a "substantial reward"
for his cooperation by departing 51 months below the guideline range.
Sumblin's sentence was not imposed in violation of law and did
not result from an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines.
Like the appellant in Hill, he is simply dissatisfied with the extent of
the departure.
2
We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
3