UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6697
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT MIKAIL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00137-JCC-1)
Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Mikail, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Nathanson, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Mikail appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion to appoint counsel for the purpose of filing a motion
for a sentence reduction under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b).
We affirm.
Mikail pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to
conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1344 (2012). Pursuant to the plea agreement, Mikail
cooperated with the Government, and, prior to Mikail’s
sentencing, the Government moved pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1, p.s., for a sentence reduction for
Mikail’s substantial assistance. At sentencing in January 2014,
the district court granted the Government’s USSG § 5K1.1, p.s.,
motion and sentenced Mikail to 52 months’ imprisonment. In the
motion for appointment of counsel filed in March 2016, Mikail
claimed he provided helpful information to the Government
regarding a robbery case and that the Government had agreed at
sentencing to file a motion to reduce his sentence in
recognition of that assistance. Mikail sought appointment of
counsel so he could file a motion seeking that sentence
reduction.
Any motion by Mikail for a sentence reduction under Rule
35(b) would contravene both his plea agreement—which provides
that the filing of a Rule 35(b) motion is committed to the sole
2
discretion of the Government—and the text of Rule 35(b)—which
allows a district court to reduce a defendant’s sentence for
substantial assistance only on the Government’s post-sentencing
motion. Given the absence of any need to appoint counsel to
pursue a meritless motion, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Mikail’s motion. See United States v.
Williamson, 706 F.3d 405, 418 n.11 (4th Cir. 2013) (addressing
appointment motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (2012)).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United
States v. Mikail, No. 1:13-cr-00137-JCC-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 17,
2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3