FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 28, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cas e No. 1 1- 13 90 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 6- cr-8 01 15 -KAM-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ORAL ROGER RUSSELL, Defend an t-Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 28 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Oral Ro ge r Ru ss el l, p ro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o c om

pe l the go ve rn m en t t o fi le a se nt en ce-r educ ti on m ot io n. Ru ss el larg ue s tha t, d es pi te th e subs tant ia l as si st an ce h e p ro vi de d l aw en fo rcem en t, the

go ve rn m en t b reac he d i ts ora l p ro m is e to fil e a s en te nc e-re du ct io n m ot io n o n h is be ha lf. Purs uantto a writ te n p le a ag reem en t, Ru ss el l p le ad edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te at l eas t fi fty gram s o f co cai ne ba se , invi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(A), an d was sen te nc edto 26 2 m on th s im pr is on m en t. The pl ea ag reem en t m ad e cl ear tha t the go ve rn m en t re se rv edth e rig htto ev al ua te th e ex te ntan d n atur e o f Ru ss el l’s co op erat io n a nd , withi n i ts di sc ret io n, co ul d m ak e a m ot io n p ur su an t t o R ul e 3 5 o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on . The ag reem en t furth er s ta te d tha t

“ no th in g i n thi s Ag reem en t m ay be co ns tru edto requi re [the go ve rn m en t] to fil e su cha m ot io n,” an d tha t the go ve rn m en t’s ev al ua ti onof Rus se ll ’s coo pe rat io n co ul d n otbe ch al le ng ed . Rus se ll si gn edth e ag reem en t. An d t he di st ric t co urt acce pt edhi s p le a as m ad e kno win gl y an d v ol un taril y , andwitho utan y pro m is e n ot co nt ai ne d i n the ag reem en t i ts el f. Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 3 5( b) pro vi de s tha t “ [u ]pon th e go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n m ad e wit hi n o ne y ear o f se nt en ci ng , th e co urt m ay reduc e a se nt en ce i f th e d efen dant , aft er s en te nc in g, p ro vi de d s ub st an ti al ass is tanc e in in ve st ig at in g o r pr os ecu ti ng an ot he r pe rs on .” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 35 (b )(1 ). Thi s 2Co urt h as affo rd edth e g ov ern m en t “ vi rtu al ly unf et te reddi sc ret io n” inde te rm in in g whe th er t o fi le a Ru le 35 (b ) se nt en ce-r educ ti on m ot io n. Mu rp hy v. Uni te d S ta te s, 63 4 F .3d13 03 , 13 13 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). To b e su re, the go ve rn m en t ca nn otrefu se to fil e a s ub st an ti al -as si st an ce m ot io n o n unc on st itut io na l g ro un ds , su chas wo ul d h ap pe n i f th e ref us al were m ot iv at edby racia l o r rel ig io us di sc riminat io n o r la ck eda rat io na l re la ti on to a le gi ti m at e g ov ern m en t en d. Wade v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 04 U.S. 18 1, 1 85 –8 6, 1 12 S. Ct . 18 40 , 18 43 –4 4 (1 99 2) . Butwher e a d efen da nt ’s cla im res ts so le ly on the al le ga ti on th athe pro vi de d s ub st an ti al ass is tanc e, oron ge ne ral iz edall eg at io ns of anim pr op er m ot iv e, we can on ly con cl ud e th atth e g ov ern m en t’s d eci si on no t t o m ov e was ba se d “ si m

pl y on it s ra ti on al ass es sm en t o f th e co stan d b en efi t tha t wou ldflo w fro m

m ov in g.” Id. at18 7, 1 12 S. Ct. at18 44 . Ru ss el l h as no t o ffer edan y ba si s fo r di sr eg ard in g t he pl ai n t erm s o f hi s p le a ag reem en t, i n wh ic h the go ve rn m en t s pe ci fic al ly dis cl ai m edan y ob li ga ti on no t co nt ai ne d the rei n. No r ha s h e m ad e a thr es ho ldsh owi ng th atth e g ov ern m en t’s refu sa l t o m ov e fo r th e se nt en ce re du ct io n was ba se d o n u nc on st itut io na l g ro un ds . See i d. at18 5– 86 , 11 2 S . Ct. at18 43 –4 4. As a res ul t, h e h as no t s ho wn g ro un ds fo r rel ie f. AFFIRMED. 3