USA v. Favors, No. 07-30826 (5th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-30826 Conference Calendar August 19, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. RONALD JOSEPH FAVORS, JR Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:97-CR-60045-1 Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ronald Joseph Favors, Jr. federal prisoner # 09800-035, appeals the district court s denial of a motion for a downward departure or evidentiary hearing pertaining to his 1998 sentence for drug possession with intent to distribute. Favors based his claims on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), FED. R. CRIM. P. 35, U.S.S.G. §§ 5K1.1 & 5K2.0, and Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 186 (1992), * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 07-30826 and he contended that he was entitled to a sentence reduction because he rendered substantial assistance to the Government. The statutes and Guidelines cited by Favors do not apply. Some require a government motion that is lacking in this case. See § 3553(e); Rule 35(b); § 5K1.1. Another does not pertain to a downward departure for substantial assistance. See § 5K2.0. Wade likewise provides no legal basis for Favors s claim. The Government has a power, not a duty, to file a motion when a defendant has substantially assisted. Wade, 504 U.S. at 185. Moreover, a claim that a defendant merely provided substantial assistance will not entitle a defendant to a remedy or even to discovery or an evidentiary hearing. Nor would additional but generalized allegations of improper motive. Id. at 186. The district court s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
