US v. Norman Dais

Filing 920090122


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6913 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NORMAN TYRONE DAIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:03-cr-00386-TLW-1) Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 22, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Norman Tyrone Dais appeals the district court's denial of his motion to compel the government to file a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence. Dais' attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although issues for counsel appeal, states he that there the are no meritorious challenges district court's denial of the motion to compel. challenge in a supplemental pro se brief. Dais advances the same 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). to However, move for a a court may of remedy the government's (1) the refusal reduction sentence if: government has obligated itself in the plea agreement to move for a reduction; or (2) the government's refusal to move for a reduction was based on an unconstitutional motive. Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992). Here, the plea agreement entered into between Dais and the government clearly and unequivocally establishes that the decision whether to file a Rule 35(b) motion rested within the sole discretion of the government. Moreover, there is no evidence that the government's refusal to file a Rule 35(b) motion was based on an 2 unconstitutional motive. Thus, we find no error by the district court in denying Dais' motion to compel. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Dais' We therefore affirm the district court's order denying to compel the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion motion. writing, This court requires that counsel inform his client, in of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must We dispense state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?