[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-12309

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:04-cr-80111-KLR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STANLEY BOLDEN, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 22, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Stanley Bolden, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his motion, brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, to reduce his 

concurrent 292-month total sentence for one count of conspiracy to distribute crack 

Case: 15-12309 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Page: 1 of 4 
2

cocaine and four counts of possession with intent to distribute at least 5 grams of 

crack cocaine. On appeal, Bolden argues that the district court erred in denying his 

motion for a reduction of sentence and not ordering the government to file a 

motion for a reduction of sentence for his substantial assistance under Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 35(b). After careful review, we affirm. 

Generally, we review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision 

whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. White, 305 

F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2002). However, in the § 3582(c)(2) context, we 

review “de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its 

authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.” Id. 

Pursuant to § 3582, a district court may modify a term of imprisonment once 

it has been imposed, to the extent permitted by Rule 35. 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(1)(B). Rule 35(b) provides that, upon the government’s motion made 

more than one year after sentencing, the district court may reduce a defendant’s 

sentence if the defendant provided information that, until one year or more after 

sentencing: (1) was unknown to the defendant; (2) did not become useful to the 

government; or (3) the defendant could not have reasonably anticipated would be 

useful to the government. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)(2)(A)-(C).

The discretion to determine whether the defendant provided substantial 

assistance, and whether to make a Rule 35(b) motion, rests solely with the 

Case: 15-12309 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Page: 2 of 4 
3

government. United States v. McNeese, 547 F.3d 1307, 1308 (11th Cir. 2008). If, 

however, a defendant alleges and makes a threshold showing that the government’s 

refusal to file a motion for a reduced sentence was based on an unconstitutional 

motive, such as the defendant’s race or religion, or breached a plea agreement, an 

evidentiary hearing and relief may be appropriate. See Wade v. United States, 504 

U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992) (unconstitutional motive); United States v. Gonsalves, 

121 F.3d 1416, 1419-20 (11th Cir. 1997) (breach of plea agreement). 

A Rule 35(b) movant “is only entitled to an evidentiary hearing when he 

offers facts which, if proven, would establish the illegality of the sentence or a 

gross abuse of discretion in failing to reduce the sentence.” United States v. 

Winfield, 960 F.2d 970, 972 (11th Cir. 1992). Generalized allegations do not rise 

to the level of a threshold showing of an unconstitutional motive and cannot 

provide the basis for a hearing or a remedy. Wade, 504 U.S. at 186. Judicial 

review is appropriate when there is an allegation and a substantial showing that the 

prosecution refused to make the motion based on a constitutionally impermissible 

motivation. United States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492, 1502-03 (11th Cir. 1993).

In this case, Bolden did not allege that the government’s failure to file a Rule 

35(b) motion was based upon an unconstitutional motive or a breach of a plea 

agreement. As a result, he has not met the threshold requirement for judicial 

review. See Wade, 504 U.S. at 185-86. Although he contends in his initial brief 

Case: 15-12309 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Page: 3 of 4 
4

that the government and district court acted in bad faith and were 

unconstitutionally motivated by racial discrimination against him, he provides no 

facts to support his assertion. These generalized allegations do not rise to the level 

of a threshold showing of an unconstitutional motive and cannot provide the basis 

for a hearing or a remedy. See id. 

In any event, aside from his own conclusory assertions, he presents no 

evidence to demonstrate that he substantially assisted the government with his 

supplier’s arrest and prosecution. Rather, according to the government, the 

information that led to his supplier’s arrest came from a cooperating individual. 

Bolden acknowledges that he provided the information immediately after his 

arrest, and the government said in its response to his motion that the supplier pled 

guilty before Bolden’s conviction and sentencing. As a result, Bolden was 

unavailable to the government and unable to provide substantial assistance in the 

supplier’s prosecution and conviction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)(2). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 15-12309 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Page: 4 of 4