The Honora ble Gre g ory

L . Fr ost, United States District J udg e for the Southern District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. 1 NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0732n.06 Filed: Oc tober 11, 2007 No. 05-6474 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA , Plaintif f-Appellee , v. ERRO L EU G EN E WA SHIN G TON , Defendant-

Appellant
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE MI DDL E DI STRI CT OF TENNESSEE

OP IN ION

BEFORE: COLE an d COOK, Circ uit Jud ges; F ROST, District Judge. *
GREGORY L. F ROST, District Judge. Appellant, Err ol Eug ene Washing ton, a fe dera l prisoner pr ocee ding pr o se, appe als a district cour t order de nying his motion to compel the g overnme nt to file a F ed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion for reduc tion of sentence . For the re asons that fo llo w, thi s Co ur

t AF F IRM S the or de r o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. BACKG ROUND On May 1, 19 95 , f

oll ow inga

jur y tr ia l, Wa sh ing ton

wa s f ound g uil ty of c on sp ir a c y

to distribute cra ck coc aine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, possession with int ent to distribute cra ck
coca ine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) , aiding and abe tting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, and ca rry ing a firea rm duringthe possession with intent to dis tribute cra ck coc aine in violation of2

18 U. S.C. § 9 24 (c ). Was hin g ton wa s se nte nc e d to se rv e a tot a l of 29 5 mo nth s o f i mpr iso nme nt,
serve a total of five y ear s of supervise d rele ase, a nd pay a $150 spec ial assessment for his crimes. This Court affirme d Washington’s c onvictions and sentenc es on Oc tober 8, 1997. United States v. W ashington , 127 F.3d 510 ( 6th Cir. 1997). The United States Supreme Court denied Washington’s pe tition for a writ of c ertiora ri on J une 22, 1998. W

ashington v. United States , 524 U.S. 940 (1998). On J une 3, 1999, Washing ton filed a motion to vacate, set aside or corr ect se ntence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the district court de nied on Marc h 15, 2001. On J uly 2, 2003, the district court g rante d Washington’s motion for re consideration, but denied his moti on to vacate and de nied his reque st for a c ertificate of a ppeala bility . The district cour

t denied Washington’s motion for a new tria l on Aug ust 4, 2003. This Court denied Washington’s application for

a ce rtificate of appe alability on August 27, 2004. On J uly 29, 2005, Washington filed the instant motion to compel the g overnme nt to file a Rule 35(b) motion for re duction of sentenc e. The district court denie d Washington’s motion on September 8, 2005, a

nd closed the c ase. Washing ton filed a timely appea l. He re quests “leave to proce ed in fictitious name.” H e has a lso filed two letters of suppleme ntal citation. II. AN AL YSI S Th is C ourt

re vie ws a

dis tr ic t c ourt

or de r d e nyinga

mot ion to c omp e l th e fi lin g of

a Rul e 35(b) motion for a

n abuse of

discretion. See U

nited States v. Marque

z , 198 F. App’ x 678, 678- 79 (9th Cir. 2006); cf. United States v. Blood, 435 F.3d 612, 627 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (applying sta nd ard to m oti on

to c omp e l pr od

uc tio n o f d oc ume nts ); Ventura v. Cincinnati Enquirer , 396 F.3d 784, 789 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (applying sta ndard to motion to compel discover y ). But see United States v. Forney , 9 F. 3 d

1 4 9 2 , 1 4 9 8 (1 1 thC i r. 1 9 9 3 ) ( co n d u ct i n g de novo revie w in Rule 35(b)3

motion case). An abuse of discretion has be en def

ined as “ ‘a de finite and fir m conviction that the trial cour

t committed a clea

r er ror of judgme nt.’ ” United States v. Burns , 298 F.3d 523, 543 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( qu o t i n g Logan v. Dayton Hudson Corp. , 865 F.2d 789, 790 ( 6th Cir. 1989)). Rule 35(b) a llows a district court to re duce a defe ndant’s sente nce ba sed upon such defe ndant’s “subse quent substantial assistance in the investigation or prosec ution of another person who ha s committed an offe nse.” Un ite d S tates v . B ag

no li , 7 F.3d 90, 92 ( 6th Cir. 1993). A def endant’ s sentence may

be re duced “ more than one y ear afte r sentenc e” if

the g overnme nt moves for a

sentenc e re duction and if the substantial a ssistance g iven involves ce rtain spec ified inf or matio n. F e d. R. C ri m. P . 3 5( b) (2 ). Th e g ov e rnme nt’ s r e fu sa l to fi le a Rul e 35 (b ) m oti on

is not subject to judicial review unless the def

endant make s a substantial threshold showingthat the g overnme nt’s decision wa s based upon a n unconstitutional mot ive. See W ade v. U nited States , 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992) ( g overnme nt’s ref usal to seek a

downwar d depar

ture unde r USSG § 5K 1. 1) ; Ba

gn oli , 7 F.3d at 92 (g overnme nt’s ref usal to move for a

downwar d depar

ture unde r 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) a

nd USSG § 5K1.1). Upon re view, this Court concludes that the district c ourt did not abuse its discretion by denying Washing ton’s motion to compel the gove rnment to file a Rule 35( b) motion. First, the parties did not execute a

plea a g ree ment or otherw ise ag ree that a Rule 35(b) motion would be contemplated by

the g overnme nt. I n fac t, the rec ord indicate s that the Tenne ssee Assistant United States Attorney

(“AUSA”) did not agree to file a Rule 35(b) motion on W ashing ton’s behalf . Second, the r ecor d also indicates that the F lorida AUSA notified the T ennesse e AUSA of the assistance provided by Washington and his sister in a F lorida druginvestigation but did not demand, or

even r ecommend, that a Rule 35(b) motion be made . Third, althoug h he has pointed to a potentially

unconstitutional mot ive, Washington ha s offe red no e vidence that the Tenne ssee4

AUSA’s re fusal to file a

Rule 35(b) motion on his behalf wa s not based on a se parate and distinct constitutional mot ive the g overnme nt offer ed. Unde r these c ircumstance s, the g overnme nt was not obligate d to file and Washing ton was not entitled to a Rule 35(b) motion for a reduc tion of sentenc e base d upon Washington’s a lleg ed post-judg ment substantial assistance. This Court further c oncludes that Washing ton was not entitled to an evide ntiary hear ing
conce rninghis moti on to compel. “[A] claim that a defe ndant mere ly provided substantial assistance will not entitl e a de fenda nt to a reme dy

. . . or an e videntiary

hear ing.” W

ade , 504 U. S. at 18 6. Ins te a d, a

de fe nd ant i s e nti tle d to a n e vid e nti ary

he ari ng“ on ly

if he make s a substantial threshold showing of an unc onstitut ional motive.” Ba gn oli , 7 F.3d at 92. Washington fa iled to make a substantial showingthat the g overnme nt had an unconstitutional mot ive for r efusingto file a Rule 35(b) motion for reduc tion of his sentence
. The g overnme nt argued that it did not file a Rule 35(b) motion bec ause the substantial assistance provided by

Washington involved a third pa rty in another jurisdiction, which the g overnme nt
asser ted would complicate its abilit y to regulate that oper ation and to protec t those involved. Washington has of

fer ed no evide nce to r efute the g overnme nt’s asser tion. Even if this Court
wer e to ac cept that Washing ton’s attempts to vacate his conviction wer e an imper missibl e re ason for the g overnme nt’s failure to file–a proposition upon which the Court ne ed not opine here –Washington still ult imately failed to produc e evide nce w arr anting a hea ringor re lief. Th e Court

re a c he s th is c on c lus ion

be c a us e the e xiste nc e of

the ind e pe nd e nt “ outsi de -t his

jurisdiction” g round sepa rate ly supports the g overnme nt’s decision not to file a Rule 35(b) motion and preve nts W ashing ton from beingable to make a showingof an unc onstitut ional motive. See U

nited States v. Capps , 140 F. App’ x 911, 913 (11th Cir. 2005) (the pr esenc e of a n independe nt, constituti onal motive upon which the g overnme nt could rely prec ludes a showingof5

an unconstitutional motive). Although the trial court’ s September 8, 2005 mar g in-notation order was notably

spartan, it still nonetheless expressly adopted the r ationale of

the g overnme nt’s opposition briefing . That brief ing inc luded the findingof the indepe ndent and leg itimate gr ound for de nying Washing ton his mot ion. III . C ON CL USI ON F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , th e Cou rt DE NI ES Washington’s motion for lea ve to proc eed in fictitious name and AF F IRMS the district court’s or der.