FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT January 25, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15680 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 96 -003 92 -C R -9-1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s C E D R I C H O L L A N D , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 25, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B A R K E T T an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C e dr i c H ol l a nd, af

e de r a l pr i s one rs e rvi ng a151- m onth s e nt e nc e f or2

p o s s e s s i o n w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e c o c a i n e b a s e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 841( a ) ( 1) , appe a l s f

r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on t o c om pe l the gove rnm e ntt o f

i l e aF e d. R . C r i m . P . 35( b) m ot i on t o r e duc e hi s s e nt e nc e f or s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e . O n appe a l , H ol l a nd a r gue s ( 1) tha tthe i ns t a ntappe a l i s not b ar re d b y th e s en ten ce -ap p ea l w aiv erin h is p lea a g re em en t; (2 ) th e g o v er n m en t’ s re fusa l t o fi l e aR ul e 35(b) m ot i on on hi s behal f c on st i tut ed a brea ch of the pl ea agre em entand a subsequentoral prom i se t o fi l e s uch a m ot i on ; and (3) the di stri ct c ourte rr e d by de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f ora n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng. U po n a tho roug h revi ew of the re cord on appeal , i ncl ud i ng H ol l and’ s w ri tt en pl e aa gr e e m e nt , the tr a ns c r i pt s of the c ha nge - of

- pl e aa nd s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ngs , a nd H ol l a nd’ s “ M ot i on t o C om pe l S pe c i f i c P e r f orm a nc e of

P l e aA gr e e m e nta nd F i l i ng of R ul e 35(b) M ot i on ” and re l at ed pl ea di ng s, and aft erconsi dera t i on of the bri ef s of the part i es t o thi s C ou rt , w e f i nd no re vers i bl e e rr or. T he S upr e m e C ourtha s he l d tha tf e de r a l di s tr i c tc ourt s m a y r e vi e w the g o v ern m en t ’ s refu sal t o fi l e a su b st an t i al -assi st an ce m o t i o n i f th e d efen d an tfi rst m akes a “ subst ant i al thres ho l d sho w i ng ” thatthe re fusa l w as base d u po n an u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l mo t i v e , s u c h a s r a c e o rr e l i g i o n . W a d e v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 5 0 4 U . S. 18 1 (19 92 ). In the abse nce of thi s s ho w i ng , the defendanthas no ri gh tt o d i sc ov ery o ra n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g o n th is is s u e . I d . a t 1 8 6 . I n W a d e , th e C o u rt n o te d th a t a3

de f e nda ntw oul d be e nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f i f the pr os e c ut or ’ s r e f

us a l t o m ove w a s not r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e dt o a n y l e g i t i ma t e g o v e rn me n ti n t e r e s t . I d . A p p l y i n g th e Su p r e me C ourt ’ s hol di ng i n W a de , thi s C ourtha s c onc l ude d tha t“ c ourt s a r e pr e c l ude d f r om i ntrudi ng i nt o pr os e c ut or i a l di s c r e t i on, ” e xc e ptw he r e the r e i s “ a n a l l e ga t i on a nd a subst ant i al show i ng thatthe prosecut i on re fuse d t o fi l e asubst ant i al as si st ance m ot i on be c aus e of

ac ons t i tut i ona l l y i m pe rm i s s i bl e m ot i va t i on, s uc h a s r a c e or re l i gi on . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. F orney, 9 F . 3d 14 92 , (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). H ol l a nd’ s a l l e ga t i ons tha tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s r e f us a l t o f i l e aR ul e 35( b) m ot i on w as “ arbi trary ” and m ade i n “ bad fai th” ar e i nsuffi ci entt o j ust i fyj ud i ci al r e vi e w , a nd be c aus e the gove rnm e ntdi d notbr e a c h the pl e aa gr e e m e ntby r e f us i ng t o fi l e aR ul e 35(b) m ot i on w hen they r et ai ned d i sc re t i on i n the m att er , the di stri ct courtdi d n oterr i n d enyi ng H ol l and’ s “ M ot i on t o C om pel ” or hi s m ot i on for a n evi dent i ary heari ng on thi s i ss ue. AF F I RME D.