Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles CLARK, a.k.a. Bunky Brown, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-31
Citations: 446 F. App'x 159
Docket Number: No. 10-14728
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles CLARK, a.k.a. Bunky Brown, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before EDMONDSON, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles CLARK, a.k.a. Bunky Brown, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-14728
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Oct. 31, 2011.
Jonathan D. Colan, Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney, Lisa A. Hirsch, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Patricia L. Diaz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Charles Clark, Coleman, FL, pro se.
Before EDMONDSON, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Clark, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to compel the government to file a motion for a sentencing reduction on his behalf, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). Clark argued that, despite rendering substantial assistance to the government, the government refused to file a Rule 35(b) motion as punishment for his earlier decision to proceed to trial.
We review de novo whether the district court can compel the government to file a substantial assistance motion. See United States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492, 1498 (11th Cir.1993). Generally, the government has the power, but not the duty, to file a motion to reduce sentence when a defendant has provided substantial assistance to the government. Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992); United States v. McNeese, 547 F.3d 1307, 1309 (11th Cir.2008). The government's refusal to file a Rule 35(b) motion can be reviewed by the district court, and the district court can grant relief, only if it finds that the government's refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive, such as race or religion. Wade, 504 U.S. at 185-86, 112 S.Ct. 1840.
In this case, the district court properly denied Clark's motion to compel the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion. This is so because, even assuming that Wade prohibits the government from retaliating against defendants who exercise their constitutional right to proceed to trial, Clark failed to make a "substantial showing" that the government harbored such a motive. See United States v. Dorsey, 554 F.3d 958, 961 (11th Cir.2009). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.