US v. Travis Barksdale, No. 14-6557 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6557 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS LEMONT BARKSDALE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00382-BO-1) Submitted: October 10, 2014 Decided: October 21, 2014 Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Travis Lemont Barksdale, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. MayParker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Travis Lemont Barksdale appeals the district court s order denying his pro se motion filed on January 9, 2014. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. In the absence of a Government motion, a district court may not grant a downward departure based on substantial assistance unless (1) the [G]overnment has obligated itself in a plea agreement to move for such a departure, or (2) unless, in the absence of such an obligation, it is shown that the government s refusal or failure so to move was based on an unconstitutional motive. 84, 87 (4th Cir. 1994) United States v. Wallace, 22 F.3d (citations omitted) United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185 86 (1992)). defendant merely provided substantial (quoting but generalized allegations assistance of v. [A] claim that a entitle a defendant to . . . an evidentiary hearing. additional Wade improper will not Nor would motive. Wade, 504 U.S. at 186; see also United States v. Conner, 930 F.2d 1073, 1076 (4th Cir. 1991) (noting party alleging breach has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the [G]overnment breached the agreement ). In this determined, the Barksdale s case case, Government based on as the already his district moved court for substantial a correctly reduction assistance. in The Government did not obligate itself in the plea agreement to move 2 for a further reduction under Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, Barksdale has failed to make any showing that the Government s failure to make such a motion was based on an unconstitutional motive. Accordingly, We dispense contentions with are oral we affirm argument adequately the district because presented in court s the facts and the materials order. legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
