FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT APRI L26, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N os. 04- 1310 4, 04- 1342 7, 04- 1401 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 3- 06 18 6- CR-KLR UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us ANDREW

HOLSTON, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( Apr il 26, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: O n January

12, 199 4, appe llant p le d gu ilty pur suant t o aple a ag re em en t t o poss ession with int ent to dist ribute cocaine base, and on April 4, 1994, the districtThe plea agree ment provided that the G overnme nt may move the cour

t before sentenc ing 1 to depar t downwar d from the Guide lines sentence rang e or the s t at u t o ri l y mandated minimum se nte nc e purs ua

nt t o U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1 a nd 18 U. S.C. § 35 53 (e ). Th e ple a a g re e me nt w a s si le nt, howeve r, as to the Gove rnment’s discr etion to mov e t h e d istrict court af ter sente ncingto reduc e appellant’ s sentence under F ed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). The Gover

nment also moved the court to unse al the parties’ plea agree ment. Th e c o urt 2 g rante d the motion. 2 co urt se nte nc ed

him to a pr iso n te rm

of 200 m onths. O n M ay

6, 200 4, inv oki ng 1 Fed. R. Crim . P . 35(b), appellant m oved the dis trict court for specif ic perfor m ance of an ora l ag reem en t t he Gov ern m en t al le ge dl y m ad e wit h h im

in 19 99
. Ac cording to h is m otion , in 1999, he contacted governm ent agents; he offere d the m inf orm at ionabout

agang tra ff

ic kin g dr ugs; and a ft er

the G ove rn m en t or al ly pr om ise d th at

if he te sti fi ed

be fo re agr an d j ur

y , it w oul d m ove the dis tr ic t c ourt p u r s u a n tt o R

u l e 3 5 ( b ) t o r e du c e h i s s e n t e n c e , h e ap p e a r e db e f o r e ag r a n dju ry. The G overnm ent, howe ver, ref used to m ove the court to reduce his sentence. The G overnm ent filed a re spon se to appellant’s R ule 35(b) m otion
. It 2 denied that it had p rom ised appellant anything for appear ing before the grand j ury and said that the law enforc em ent officer s invo lved in th e case did no t believe that ap p el l an th adb ee n tru t h fu l b ef o re th e g ra n dju ry. In s h o rt , t h e G o v ern m en t ’s posit ion was that any

assistance appellant had provi ded law e nforcem ent was
wor th le ss .3

On June 3, 2004, the court denied appellant’ s Rule 35(b) m otion in a w ritten
or de r w hic h st at ed

that i t w as de ny ing the m oti on a ft er r ev ie w ing “ the pe rt ine nt portio ns o f the r ec or d and b ei ng d uly a dvi se d inthe pr em ise s. ” O n June 9, ap pe llant m ove d th e co urt f or an e xte nsi on o f tim e to r es pond to the G ove rn m en t’ s r es pons e to h is M ay 6 m oti on. O n June 11, appe llant a ppe al ed the court’ s June 3 order. Appellant also m oved the court to am end or reconsider that order. O n June 21 , the c ourt denied as m oot appellant ’ s June 9 m otion for an extension of tim e, and appellant appealed that order. On July 15, the court issued
anor de r de ny ing appe llant’ s m oti on t o am en d or r ec onsi de r, and a

ppe llant ap pe al edth atord er. Rule 35(b) Re ducin g a Sente nce for Su bstantial A ssistance , state s, in
re le vant p ar

t: ( 1) I n G en er al
. Upon the gov er nm en t’ s m oti on m ad e within one y ear of sentencing, the court m ay reduce a sentence if: ( A ) the de fe ndant, a ft er

se nte nc ing , pr ovi de d su

bst an tia l a ssi stanc e in inv es tig at ing or

pr ose cu tin g anothe r pe rs on; an d ( B) r ed uc ing the se nte nc e ac co rd s w iththe Se nte nc ing Co m

m iss ion ’ s gu ide lin es and po li cy st at em en ts . ( 2) L at er

Mo tio n. Upon the gov er nm en t' s m oti on m ad e m ore than one y ear after

sentencing, the court m ay4 reduce a sentence if the defe ndant's sub stantial assist ance inv olv ed : ( A ) inf orm at ionnot

kno w n to the defendant until one y ear or m ore af ter se nte nc ing ; ( B) in fo rm at ionpr ovi de d by the de fe ndant to the gov er

nm en t w ith in o ne y ear of se nte nc ing , but

w hic h di d no t be co m e use fu l to the gov ernm ent until m ore than one y ear af te r se nte nc ing ; or (C) inform ation the usefuln ess of which could no t reasonably

have been anticipated by the defendant until m ore than one y ear af te r se nte nc ing and whic h w as pr om ptl y pr ovi de d to the gov er

nm en t a ft er

it s use fu lne ss w as r ea sona

bly appare nt t o th e de fe ndant.
T eny ears e la

pse d be tw ee n th e im

posi tio n of

appe llant’ s se nte nc e an d th e fil in g o f ap pe ll an t’s Ru le 35 (b ) m ot io n. Th us , th e Ru le ’s subs ect io n (2 ) go ve rn s. Ina ddr es sin g th e gove rn m en t’ s r ef usa l t o f ile apr e- se nte nc ing sub stanti al
as sis tanc e m oti on p ur suant t o U
. S
. S
. G
. § 5K 1. 1 ( w hic h is a kinto the pos tse nte nc ing pr ovi sio n of

Ru le 35( b) ), the S upr em e Co urt i n W ad e v. U nit ed S ta te s, 504 U.S .181, 183, 185-86, 112 S.C t. 1840, 1842, 1844 , 118 L. Ed. 2d 52 4 (1992), he ld tha t:5

because w e see no re ason why courts shou ld treat a prosecutor' s r e f u s a l t o f i l e as ub s t a n t i a l
- a s s i s t a n c e mo t i o n d i f f e r e n t l y f r o m a pr ose cu tor ' s othe r de ci sio ns, w e hol d th at f ed er al dis tr ic t c ourts h av e au tho ri ty to re vie wapr ose cu tor ' s r ef usa l t o f ile asub stanti al
assistance m otion and to grant a rem edy if they find that the refusal w as ba se d onan un co nst itu tio na l m oti ve . T hus, ade fe ndant w oul d be entitled to relief if a

prosecutor refused to file a subst antial-assistance m otion , say , bec ause of the defendant's r ace or religion. It f

ollows that a cl ai m that a de fe ndant m er el y

pr ovi de d su

bst an tia l a ssi stanc e w ill not entit le a def

endant to a rem edy

or even to discovery

or an ev ide nti ar

y he ar ing
. N or

w oul d a ddi tio na l bu t ge ne ra liz ed a lle ga tio ns of im proper m otive.
W ad e, 504 U
. S. a t 18 5- 186, 112 S
. Ct
. a t 18 43- 1844
. Ade fe ndant “ w oul d [ al so] be e nti tle d to r el ie f if

the pr ose cu tor ' s r ef

usa l t o m ove w as not

r at ion al ly

r el at ed to
an y leg it im at e [g ]ove rn m en t en d.” W ad e, 50 4 U.S. at18 6, 1 12 S.Ct . at 1 84 4. T hus, a lth oughboth § 5 K 1. 1 and R ule 35( b) c ont ai n th e lim iti ng p hr as e “ upon m oti on b y

the gov er

nm en t, ” the A rt ic le I II c ourts s til l r et ai n th e au tho ri ty to
re vie wthe r ef

usa l onli m ite d gr ound s, e . g. , an un co nst itu tio na l m oti ve . W ad e, 504 U.S. at 1 85 -1 86 , 11 2 S .Ct. at 18 44
. A s no te d, the ba sis of

appe llant’ s m oti on t o c om pe l i s abr ea chby

the Governm ent of an oral prom ise to file a Rule 35(b) m otion
. The question here boils down to whether the district court w as required to hold an evident iary he ar ing on a

ppe llant’ s m oti on. T houg h w e ar e aw ar e of no d ec isi on a ddr es sin g the iss ue of

w he n th e co urt m

ust hol d an e vid en tiary

he ar ing on a

Ru le 35( b)6

m oti on, w e have c onsi de re d th e iss ue in the § 5K 1. 1 c ont ex t. U nit ed S ta te s v. Gonsalves, 121 F. 3d 14 16, 1420 (11t h Cir. 1997 ). T o obtain an evidentiary hearing, w e said, the “ defendant m ust first put forth evid ence of bad f aith before the governm ent's duty

to respond, and defendant's right to reply , are triggere d.” Id. In this case, appellant failed to produce such evid ence. T he district court th eref or e co m m it te d n o e rro r in de nyin g app el la nt ’s m ot io n fo r Ru le 35 (b ) rel ie f. Furthe r, the c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing appe llant’ s su bse que nt
m oti ons. AFFIRMED.