Filed: Sep. 02, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4381 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. QUAVIS J. RUDISELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (0:09-cr-01021-JFA-3) Submitted: August 24, 2011 Decided: September 2, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4381 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. QUAVIS J. RUDISELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (0:09-cr-01021-JFA-3) Submitted: August 24, 2011 Decided: September 2, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4381
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
QUAVIS J. RUDISELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:09-cr-01021-JFA-3)
Submitted: August 24, 2011 Decided: September 2, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, William K. Witherspoon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Quavis J. Rudisell appeals his 120-month sentence for
conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Finding no
error, we affirm.
On appeal, Rudisell contends that he provided
substantial assistance, which obligated the Government to move
for a downward departure under the terms of his plea agreement.
He argues that the district court therefore erred in denying his
motion to compel the Government to move for a downward
departure.
The decision to move for a downward departure based on
substantial assistance is generally left to the Government’s
discretion. United States v. Butler,
272 F.3d 683, 686 (4th
Cir. 2001); United States v. Dixon,
998 F.2d 228, 230 (4th Cir.
1993). Courts may inquire into the Government’s failure to file
such a motion where (1) the Government has obligated its in the
plea agreement to move for a departure; or (2) the Government’s
refusal to move for a departure was based on an unconstitutional
motive, such as race or religion. See Wade v. United States,
504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992); United States v. Wallace,
22 F.3d
84, 87 (4th Cir. 1994).
2
Although Rudisell argues that he has provided
substantial assistance and thus the Government is now obligated
under the terms of the plea agreement to move for a downward
departure, a careful reading of the plea agreement reveals that
the Government has made no such obligation. Rather, the plea
agreement clearly states, in relevant part, if Rudisell “is
deemed by the Government as providing substantial assistance in
the investigation or prosecution of another person who has
committed an offense, the Government agrees to move the court
for a downward departure or reduction of sentence.” (emphasis
added). The Government has not deemed Rudisell’s cooperation to
be substantial assistance, and thus we find that it has not
obligated itself under the terms of the plea agreement to move
for a downward departure or reduction in sentence.
We therefore uphold the district court’s denial of
Rudisell’s motion to compel and affirm the criminal judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately expressed in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3