US v. Michael Matthew, No. 10-7223 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7223 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MICHAEL F. MATTHEWS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00226-REP-1) Submitted: November 10, 2010 Decided: December 10, 2010 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael F. Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Matthews appeals the district court s denial of his motion to reconsideration. compel specific performance and motion for Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Matthews pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than fifty months grams of cocaine imprisonment. reduction of The sentence base and Government pursuant to was sentenced filed to motion Rule Federal a of 480 for a Criminal Procedure 35(b) ( Rule 35 ), which the district court granted, reducing Matthews s sentence to 300 months imprisonment. Matthews filed a Motion to Compel Specific Performance, asking the court to compel the Government to consider instances of Matthews s substantial assistance. court denied the motion as moot. additional The district Matthews then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that his original motion was not moot because it outlined different facts than the Government s Rule 35 motion. ground that The district court denied the motion on the Matthews lacked standing to Matthews argues that seek a reduction in sentence under Rule 35. On erred when appeal, it declined to compel the the district Government to court consider additional instances of cooperation that it did not include in its original denial of a Rule 35 motion motion. to We compel review under 2 an a district abuse of court s discretion standard. 1999). Wells v. Liddy, 186 F.3d 505, 518 n.12 (4th Cir. Plea agreements are grounded in contract law, and both parties should receive the benefit of their bargain. States v. Bowe, 257 F.3d 336, 345 (4th Cir. 2001). United Because of constitutional and supervisory concerns, the Government is held to a greater degree of responsibility ambiguities in plea agreements. F.2d 294, 300-01 (4th Cir. for imprecision or United States v. Harvey, 791 1986). Where an agreement is ambiguous in its terms, the terms must be construed against the Government. Id. at 300, 303. However, [w]hile the government must be held to the promises it made, it will not be bound to those it did not make. United States v. Fentress, 792 F.2d 461, 464-65 (4th Cir. 1986). Here, the Government was under obligation pursuant to the plea agreement. no enforceable The agreement merely states that the Government reserves the right to seek . . . any reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, if, in its sole discretion, the United States determines that such a departure or reduction of sentence is appropriate. Thus, the decision of what constituted substantial assistance for purposes of the Rule 35 motion fell squarely within the Government s discretion. 3 Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Matthews s motions. * We therefore affirm the district court s orders. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * See MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 532, 536 (4th Cir. 2002) ( [W]e are entitled to affirm the court s judgment on alternate grounds, if such grounds are apparent from the record. ). 4
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.
