[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
April 13, 2009
No. 08-14637 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00088-CR-F-N
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TONY MITCHELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
_________________________
(April 13, 2009)
Before BIRCH, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Tony Mitchell, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to reduce sentence based on substantial assistance, under Fed. R. Crim. P.
35(b). On appeal, Mitchell argues that the district court erred in denying his Rule
35(b) motion to reduce sentence because, although only the government may file a
Rule 35 motion, he was merely trying to inform the court that he never received the
benefit of the government’s motion for downward departure.
We review de novo a district court’s decision that it lacks authority to reduce
a sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). United States v. Orozco, 160 F.3d 1309,
1312-13 (11th Cir. 1998).
Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the
district court may reduce a defendant’s sentence to reflect substantial assistance
provided by the defendant to the government after sentencing only “[u]pon the
government’s motion.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)(1). As the language of the rule
indicates, the district court may only reduce a defendant’s sentence pursuant to
Rule 35(b) upon the government’s motion. United States v. Howard, 902 F.2d
894, 897 (11th Cir. 1990).
Generally, the government has the power, but not the duty, to file a motion
to reduce sentence when a defendant has substantially assisted. Wade v. United
States, 504 U.S. 181, 185 (1992) (analyzing substantial assistance motions under
U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e)). Thus, a district court only may review
2
the government’s refusal to file a substantial assistance motion if the defendant
makes a showing that the refusal was based upon an unconstitutional motive, such
as his race or religion. Id. at 185-86.
The district court did not err in finding that it lacked authority to grant
Mitchell’s Rule 35(b) motion to reduce sentence. Because the government never
filed a Rule 35(b) motion, the district court properly concluded that it lacked the
authority to reduce Mitchell’s sentence. In addition, the government’s failure to
file such a motion was not subject to review because Mitchell did not make any
showing that the government’s decision in that regard was based on an
unconstitutional motive.1
Accordingly, Mitchell’s arguments are without merit and we affirm the
district court’s order denying his Rule 35(b) motion to reduce sentence.
AFFIRMED.
1
We also note that, contrary to Mitchell’s assertion, he received the benefit of the
government’s U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion when the district court granted the motion, reduced his
offense level one level, from 37 to 36, and, correspondingly, reduced his sentence.
3