UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                      No. 95-5083
ANTHONY LEE SCOTT, a/k/a Straight,
a/k/a James Antonio Coleman,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge.
(CR-94-1-P)

Submitted: November 7, 1996

Decided: November 21, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Norman Butler, LAW OFFICE OF HAROLD J. BENDER, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States
Attorney, Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Anthony Lee Scott appeals his sentence for conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base under 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (1994). The plea agreement unambiguously provided that if the
Government determined that Scott's assistance was substantial, the
Government would move for a downward departure. Although Scott
provided some assistance, the Government did not deem the assis-
tance to be substantial, and consequently declined to file a USSG
§ 5K1.1* motion. Scott claims that the Government breached the plea
agreement by failing to move for a downward departure. Further,
Scott asserts that the Government's decision was not rationally related
to a legitimate governmental objective. Finding no error, we affirm.

A party alleging the breach of a plea agreement bears the burden
of proving that breach. United States v. Dixon , 998 F.2d 228, 230 (4th
Cir. 1993). While a district court generally cannot review the Govern-
ment's refusal to move for a § 5K1.1 departure, review is necessitated
if the defendant makes a "substantial threshold showing" that the
Government's decision was not rationally related to a legitimate gov-
ernmental objective. Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86
(1992). The threshold showing must transcend a mere recitation of the
assistance provided by the defendant. Id. at 186.

Scott fails to make the substantial threshold showing. Rather, he
offers only a description of the extent of his assistance. As the
Supreme Court noted in Wade, "[a]lthough a showing of assistance is
a necessary condition for relief, it is not a sufficient one." Id. at 187.
Thus, we affirm Scott's sentence. We dispense with oral arugment
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
_________________________________________________________________
*United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 5K1.1
(Nov. 1994). Scott was sentenced in January 1995.

                    2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
