FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 31, 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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 o. 04- 1343 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNos . 90 -0 07 97 -CR- KLR

90 -0 07 98 -CR- KLR UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us CARLOS MI GUEL ORTIZ, a. k. a. F la co , D ef en dant- Appe llant.

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

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 31, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N and D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Carl os M igu el O rt iz ( “ O rt iz ”) , apr o se f ed er al pr iso ne r se rv ing c onc ur re nt 360- m onth se nte nc es f

or c onsp ir ing to im

port c oc ai ne and c onsp ir ing to poss es s co ca ine w ithint en t t o di str ibu te , appe al s th e de nia l of his pos t- j udgm en t m oti on t o co m pe l the gov er

nm en t t o f

ile aF ed . R. Cr im . P. 35( b) m oti on f or r ed uc tio n of his se nte nc e. O n a

ppe al , O rt iz arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n in deny ing hi s m otion without a hearing. He m aintains that he has prov ided subs tantial assistance to the go vernm ent, but nevertheless, the governm ent refuses to m ove f or the se nte nc e re duc tio n it pr om ise d be ca

use it sus pe ct s hi m

of hid ing assets. H e asserts that the governm ent’ s unwilling ness to request a sentence reduction is th e re sult of bad faith, and he also m aintains that th e district court de ni edhi m

du e p ro ces s o f la w when itrefu se d t o g ran t h im an ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Ortiz also argues that the governm ent breached the ter m s of his plea ag re em en t whe n it

f ai le d to m ove d f

or ase nte nc e re duc tio n. H e ar gue s th at the gove rn m en t’ s f

ai lur e to m en tio n it s di ssatis fa ct ionw ithhis f inanc ia l di sc los ur es , while nevertheless continuin g to sol icit assistance from him , indicates that it w as act in g i n b adfai th . W e re vie wde nov o whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt c anc om pe l the gov er

nm en t t o m ak e a subs tanti al a ssi stanc e m oti on. U nit ed S tate s v. F or

ne y , 9 F . 3d 1 492, 149 8 (1 1thCi r. 199 3) . W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt' s de nia l of an e vid en tiary

he ar ing3

for an abuse of discre tion. United State s v. G ay , 251 F. 3d 95 0, 951 (11th Cir. 2001 ). W e re vie wde nov o th e iss ue of “ [w ] he the r the gov er

nm en t ha s br ea ch ed

a pl ea ag reem en t.” Un it edSta te s v . Mah iq ue , 15 0 F .3d13 30 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Purs uant t o U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1, adis tr ic t c ourt m ay im pose ase nte nc e be low the m inim

um required under the guidelines if the gov ernm ent files a “ subs tantial assistance” m otion when the def endant is sentenced. U. S. S. G. § 5K1.1. Feder al Rule of Cr im inal Procedure 35(b) provides that, a fter a sentence has been im posed, upon m otion of the governm ent, a district court m ay

reduce a defendant's se nt en ce b el ow t he st atut ory m in im um ba se d o n s ub st an ti al ass is ta nc e. Fed .R.Cri m .P. 35 (b ). In Forney , the def

endant’ s plea agree m ent vested the decision of w hether the de fe ndant’ s c oope ratio n am ount ed to subs tanti al a ssi stanc e sol el y w iththe gove rn m en t. W e he ld tha t the gov er nm en t di d no t br ea chthe ple a ag re em en t by failing to m ove for a downw ard departure based upo n subs tantial assistance, because the plea agre em ent onlystated that the gov ernm ent would consid er whether the defendant’ s aid am ount ed to subs tantial assistance and that such d et erm i n at i o nwa s s o l el y th e g o v ern m en t ’s . F o rn ey, 9 F. 3 dat1 4 9 9 -1 5 0 1 . We state d th at , in the c ont ex t of 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( e) and U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1, the governm ent has “ ‘ a power , not a duty , to file a m otion when a defendant has4

subs tanti al ly

a ssi ste d. ’ ” Id . a t 15 00 ( quot ing W ad e v. U nit ed S tate s, 504 U . S. 181 , 18 5, 1 12 S.Ct . 18 40 , 18 43 , 11 8 L.Ed .2d52 4 (1 99 2) ). InW ad e, the S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t “ fe de ra l c ourts h av e au tho ri ty to re vie wapr ose cutor ’ s r ef usa l t o f ile asub stanti al -a ssi stanc e m oti on and t o gr an t a re m edy if the y f ind that the r ef

usa l w as ba se d onan un co nst itutio na l m oti ve , ” lik e

“ ra ce or r el igi on. ” W ad e, 504 U . S. a t 18 5- 86, 112 S . Ct . a t 18 43- 44. Ade fe ndant w ho m er el y

c la im s to have pr ovi de d su bst antia l a ssi stanc e or

w ho m ak es onl y ge ne ra liz ed

a lle ga tio ns o f im

pr ope r m oti ve is not

e nti tle d to ar em edy

or e ve n to discovery or an evidentiary

hearing. Id. at 186, 112 S.Ct. at 1844. T hus, j udicial re vie wis ap pr opr iate onl y w he n “ the re is ana lle ga tio n and a sub stanti al sho w ing that the prosecution ref

used to file a substant ial assistance m otion because of a co ns ti tu ti on al ly im

pe rm is si bl e m ot iv at io n.” Forne y , 9 F.3 d a t 1 50 2. Inthe ins tant c as e, O rt iz ’ s c la im is w ith out

m er it, be ca

use he ha s f

ai le d to allege an unconstit ution al m otive for the governm ent’ s decision n ot to file a m otion for a reduction in h is sentence. S ee W ade, 504 U.S . at 185-86 , 112 S. Ct. at 1843 -4 4. O rt iz a lle ge d th at the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d hi m due pr oc es s of

lawby re fu sin g to gr an t hi m

an e vid en tiary

he ar ing , but

thi s c onst itutio na l c la im co n ce rn edth e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s d ec i s i o n , a n dd i dn o tat tri b u t e t h e g o v ern m en t ’s decision no t to request a sentence re duction on his b ehalf to an unconstit ution al5

m oti ve , suc h a s r ac e or

r el igi on. I d. a t 18 5- 86, 112 S . Ct . a t 18 43- 44. I n r eg ar d to the gov er nm en t, O rt iz m ad e onl y

ge ne ra l a lle ga tio ns o f ba d f ai th. I n li ght

of O rt iz ’ s f ai lur e to a lle ge an un co nst itutio na l m oti ve , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse its discretion b y

ref using to holdan evidentiary hearing on the m atter. See id. at 18 6, 1 12 S.Ct . at 1 84 4. Finally , a lthou gh Ortiz m aintains that th e governm ent breached the plea ag re em en t by

de cl ini ng t o r eque st a

r ed uc tio n inhis se nte nc e, thi s c la im is unconv incing, because the plea agre em ent providedonly for the possibil ity

that th e g ov ern m en t m ig ht , in it s s ol e d is cret io n, fi le su ch a m ot io n. Se e Fo rn ey , 9 F.3 d a t 1 49 9- 15 00 . Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we dis ce rnno r ev er sib le e rr or . A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of Orti z’s m ot io n. AFFIRMED.