[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14140

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:01-cr-00066-RV-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

KENNETH FRANCIS COLLINS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(July 31, 2013)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-14140 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Kenneth Collins, proceeding pro se and filing in forma pauperis, appeals the 

denial of his petition for writ of mandamus to compel the government to file a 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion in return for substantial 

assistance he provided in the investigation and prosecution of several individuals. 

Collins argues that the district court erred in determining it did not have 

jurisdiction to consider his motion, the government waived its discretion in filing 

the Rule 35(b) motion when a DEA agent made an oral promise to file the motion 

for him, and the government is bound by the oral contract created by that DEA 

agent. 

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), the district court may 

reduce a defendant’s sentence if “the defendant, after sentencing, provided 

substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person” and the 

government files a motion requesting such relief. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). The 

government has the power, but not the duty, to file a substantial assistance motion. 

See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185, 112 S. Ct. 1840, 1843 (1992)

(discussing prosecutorial discretion and substantial assistance motions under 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(e)) and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1; United States v. McNeese, 547 F.3d 1307, 

1308 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (applying Wade to a Rule 35(b) motion). The 

government enjoys “virtually unfettered discretion” in deciding whether to file a 

Rule 35 motion. Murphy v. United States, 634 F.3d 1303, 1313 (11th Cir. 2011). 

Case: 12-14140 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

The Supreme Court’s decision in Wade—not principles of contract law—controls 

review of governmental discretion in filing sentence reduction motions. United 

States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492, 1503 n.3 (11th Cir. 1993). 

The district court may only review the government’s refusal to file if the 

defendant first makes “an allegation and a substantial showing” that the refusal 

was based upon an unconstitutional motive, such as race or religion. United States 

v. Dorsey, 554 F.3d 958, 961 (11th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original) (internal 

quotation marks omitted) (citing Forney, 9 F.3d at 1502). “A defendant who 

merely claims to have provided substantial assistance or who makes only 

generalized allegations of an improper motive is not entitled to a remedy or to even 

an evidentiary hearing.” Id. 

Under the All Writs Act, federal courts may issue “all writs necessary or 

appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and 

principles of law.” 28 U.S.C § 1651. A district court has original jurisdiction to 

“compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to 

perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus is a drastic 

remedy, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations. In re BellSouth Corp., 334 

F.3d 941, 953 (11th Cir. 2003). 

We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a writ of mandamus for 

abuse of discretion. In re Stewart, 641 F.3d 1271, 1275 (11th Cir. 2011) (per 

Case: 12-14140 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

curiam). A writ of mandamus “is only appropriate when: (1) the plaintiff has a 

clear right to the relief requested; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and 

(3) no other adequate remedy is available.” Cash v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252, 

1258 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and alteration 

omitted). Said differently, a plaintiff must show that “he has exhausted all other 

avenues of relief” and “the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). The party seeking the writ of mandamus must 

establish that his or her right to the writ’s issuance is “clear and indisputable.” Will 

v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 96, 88 S. Ct. 269, 274 (1967) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

Collins has failed to make the required threshold showing that the 

government acted with an unconstitutional motive when it refused to file a Rule 

35(b) motion on his behalf. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Collins’s petition.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 12-14140 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 4 of 4