Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    United States v. McCullers, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Demetrius Lamont McCullers appealed the district court's dismissal of his motion to compel the Government to file a motion for a reduced sentence based on his substantial assistance. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no error. The appellate court agreed with the district court that the Government has discretion over whether to file such a motion and that McCullers provided no evidence the Government's refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. McCullers, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Demetrius Lamont McCullers appealed the district court's dismissal of his motion to compel the Government to file a motion for a reduced sentence based on his substantial assistance. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no error. The appellate court agreed with the district court that the Government has discretion over whether to file such a motion and that McCullers provided no evidence the Government's refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-06-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6324

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Demetrius Lamont McCullers appealed the district court's dismissal of his motion to compel the Government to file a motion for a reduced sentence based on his substantial assistance. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no error. The appellate court agreed with the district court that the Government has discretion over whether to file such a motion and that McCullers provided no evidence the Government's refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    United States v. McCullers, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Demetrius Lamont McCullers appealed the district court's dismissal of his motion to compel the Government to file a motion for a reduced sentence based on his substantial assistance. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no error. The appellate court agreed with the district court that the Government has discretion over whether to file such a motion and that McCullers provided no evidence the Government's refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-6324

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DEMETRIUS LAMONT MCCULLERS, a/k/a Meek,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-96-51-BO)
    Submitted:

    May 14, 1998

    Decided:

    June 3, 1998

    Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Demetrius Lamont McCullers, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing Appellant's motion to compel the Government to make a Fed. R. Crim. P.
    35 motion or motion under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 5K1.1
    (1996), for a downward departure based on substantial assistance.
    We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and
    find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
    of the district court. United States v. McCullers, No. CR-96-51-BO
    (E.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 1998). 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

    You might also like