1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20093-1 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

D1, CHRISTIAN MACGREGOR, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REDUCE 

SENTENCE UNDER RULE 35(b) (ECF No. 340); (2) DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ECF No. 343); 

AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL (ECF No. 345) 

In August of 2017, United States District Judge Marianne O. Battani 

sentenced Defendant Christian MacGregor to a term of 157 in prison for his pleabased convictions of bank robbery and other offenses. (See Judgment, ECF No. 

282.). MacGregor is currently in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

MacGregor has now filed a Motion to Reduce Sentence under Rule 35(b). 

(See Mot., ECF No. 340). He has also filed a Motion for Pro Se Evidentiary Hearing 

(ECF No. 343) and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 345). For the 

reasons explained below, the motions are DENIED. 

The Court begins with MacGregor’s motion under Rule 35(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Criminal Procedure. That rule provides that: 

Case 2:15-cr-20093-MFL-APP ECF No. 357, PageID.2252 Filed 07/01/24 Page 1 of 4
2 

(1) In General. Upon the government's motion made within one 

year of sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant, 

after sentencing, provided substantial assistance in investigating or 

prosecuting another person. 

(2) Later Motion. Upon the government's motion made more 

than one year after sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the 

defendant's substantial assistance involved: 

(A) information not known to the defendant until one year 

or more after sentencing; 

(B) information provided by the defendant to the 

government within one year of sentencing, but which did not 

become useful to the government until more than one year after 

sentencing; or 

(C) information the usefulness of which could not 

reasonably have been anticipated by the defendant until more 

than one year after sentencing and which was promptly provided 

to the government after its usefulness was reasonably apparent to 

the defendant. 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). 

MacGregor argues that he is entitled to relief under this rule because he 

cooperated with the Government in the investigation and prosecution of other 

individuals. The Court disagrees for two reasons. 

 First, as the text of Rule 35(b) makes clear, the only party that may make a 

motion under the rule is the Government. A defendant has no right to seek relief 

under the rule. Thus, MacGregor’s motion must be denied. See United States v. 

Stroh, 48 F. App’x 991, 993 (6th Cir. 2002) (“Absent the appropriate government 

Case 2:15-cr-20093-MFL-APP ECF No. 357, PageID.2253 Filed 07/01/24 Page 2 of 4
3 

motion, the district court lack[s] authority to consider [a defendant’s] motion [under 

Rule 35].”)1

 

 Second, as the text of the rule further makes clear, a motion under the rule 

“permits a court to reward a defendant with a lower sentence based on the 

defendant's post-sentencing cooperation,” United States v. Recla, 560 F.3d 539, 546 

(6th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original), and MacGregor does not clearly allege that 

he provided any cooperation after sentencing. For this additional reason, he is not 

entitled to relief under Rule 35(b). 

 For both of the reasons stated above and for all of the reasons set forth by the 

Government (see Response, ECF No. 352), MacGregor’s Motion to Reduce 

Sentence Under Rule 35(b) is DENIED. 

 Because MacGregor has not shown that he has even a colorable claim for 

relief under Rule 35(b), the Court declines to appoint counsel for him and declines 

to order an evidentiary hearing. The Court therefore denies MacGregor’s motions 

seeking that relief. 

 

1

 MacGregor seems to suggest that he should be permitted to pursue relief under 

Rule 35(b) because the Government acted in bad faith. He cites no authority for that 

proposition. But even if a defendant could pursue relief under Rule 35(b) based 

upon a showing of bad faith, the Court would still deny MacGregor’s motion. His 

papers do not show bad faith by the Government. 

Case 2:15-cr-20093-MFL-APP ECF No. 357, PageID.2254 Filed 07/01/24 Page 3 of 4
4 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. MacGregor’s Motion to Reduce Sentence under Rule 35(b) (ECF No. 340) is 

DENIED. 

2. MacGregor’s Motion for Pro Se Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 343) is 

DENIED. 

3. MacGregor’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 345) is 

DENIED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: July 1, 2024 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on July 1, 2024, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126

Case 2:15-cr-20093-MFL-APP ECF No. 357, PageID.2255 Filed 07/01/24 Page 4 of 4