[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-10588

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20248-JEM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

WILLIAM OBREGON PAREDES,

a.k.a. Tio Bavario,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(November 26, 2019)

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 19-10588 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 1 of 5 
2

William Obregon Paredes, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s 

denial of his motion to compel the government to file a motion for sentence 

reduction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). He argues that he is 

entitled to such a motion based on the substantial assistance he provided after 

sentencing, and that the government’s failure to file a Rule 35(b) motion is a 

breach of his plea agreement. 

For context, Paredes pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement, which 

stated

If in the sole and unreviewable judgment of [the 

government] the defendant’s cooperation is of such quality 

and significance to the investigation or prosecution of 

other criminal matters as to warrant the Court’s downward 

departure from [the guideline range], [the government] 

may make a motion prior to sentencing pursuant to Section 

5K1.1 . . . , or subsequent to sentencing pursuant to Rule 

35 . . . informing the Court that the defendant has provided 

substantial assistance and recommending that the 

defendant’s sentence be reduced. The defendant

understands and agrees, however, that nothing in this 

agreement requires [the government] to file any such 

motions, and that [its] assessment of the quality and 

significance of the defendant’s cooperation shall be 

binding as it relates to the appropriateness of [its] filing or 

non-filing of a motion to reduce sentence.

The presentence investigation report indicated that Paredes’s guideline range 

was 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment, the statutory minimum sentence was 10 

years’ imprisonment, and the statutory maximum was life imprisonment. 

However, because Paredes met the criteria of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)–(5), the 

Case: 19-10588 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 2 of 5 
3

district court could impose a sentence regardless of the statutory minimum. At 

sentencing, the government moved for a sentence reduction under U.S.S.G. 

§ 5K1.1, based on Paredes’s substantial cooperation with the government prior to 

sentencing. Specifically, the government recommended a sentence of 135 months’ 

imprisonment, reduced by 40 percent to 81 months’ imprisonment. The district 

court granted the § 5K1.1 motion. It imposed a downward variance to 120

months’ imprisonment before applying the 40 percent reduction, resulting in a 

72-month sentence. 

Paredes then filed this motion to compel the government to file a Rule 35(b) 

motion, asserting that he had provided substantial assistance after sentencing and 

that the government breached the plea agreement by failing to file a Rule 35(b) 

motion. The district court denied the motion. Because Paredes has not shown that 

the government’s refusal to file a Rule 35(b) motion was motivated by an 

unconstitutional motive or constituted a breach of the plea agreement, we affirm 

the district court. 

I

We review de novo whether the district court may compel the government to 

file a substantial-assistance motion. See United States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492, 

1498 (11th Cir. 1993). Additionally, we review de novo whether the government 

Case: 19-10588 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 3 of 5 
4

has breached a plea agreement. United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101, 1104 

(11th Cir. 2004).

Under § 5K1.1, a court may depart from the advisory guideline range at 

sentencing if the government files a motion “stating that the defendant has 

provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another.” 

U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Similarly, Rule 35(b) provides that a district court may reduce a 

defendant’s sentence for providing substantial assistance after sentencing, if the 

government moves for such a reduction within one year of his sentence. Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 35(b)(1). “[T]he government has a power, not a duty, to file a motion

when a defendant has substantially assisted.” United States v. Dorsey, 554 F.3d 

958, 961 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The government’s discretion to refuse to file a substantial-assistance motion 

is subject to judicial review in only two circumstances. First, it is reviewable if the 

refusal constitutes a breach of the plea agreement. See United States v. Gonsalves, 

121 F.3d 1416, 1419 (11th Cir. 1997) (discussing motions under § 5K1.1). 

Second, its discretion is subject to review if it is based on an unconstitutional 

motive, such as the defendant’s race or religion. See Wade v. United States, 504 

U.S. 181, 185–86 (1992) (discussing motions under § 5K1.1); United States v. 

McNeese, 547 F.3d 1307, 1308 (11th Cir. 2008) (extending Wade to Rule 35(b) 

motions). We have previously concluded that the government’s refusal to file a 

Case: 19-10588 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 4 of 5 
5

substantial-assistance motion is not a breach of a plea agreement that merely 

provides that the government will “consider” filing such a motion. See Forney, 9 

F.3d at 1499–1500 & n.2. 

Here, the district court did not err in denying Paredes’s motion. First, he did 

not allege or show that the government had an unconstitutional motivation for 

refusing to file a Rule 35(b) motion. See Wade, 504 U.S. at 185–86; McNeese, 547 

F.3d at 1308. Furthermore, he did not show that the government breached the plea 

agreement, as the plain language of the agreement gave the government the 

discretion to determine whether to file a Rule 35(b) motion. See Forney, 9 F.3d 

at 1499–1500 & n.2. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-10588 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 5 of 5