Opinion ID: 804450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Text: Instead, in August 2011, Mells filed the present pro se petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence. Mells claimed that he qualified for a sentence reduction under Rule 35(b) because he provided substantial information that led to the arrest and conviction of his brother, Elliot Mack, for the shooting death of William Sancho, III. Mells claimed that, after finding out that Mack committed the crime, he convinced Mack to plead guilty. Mells attached to his petition correspondence between his attorney, Ronald Fox, and the assistant state attorney who prosecuted Mack. The assistant state attorney stated his opinion that the Sancho murder would not have been solved without Mells’s convincing Mack to confess. The government responded to the petition and asserted that a Rule 35(b) motion was unwarranted because Mells never actually talked to federal or state authorities; Mells’s attorney told the assistant state attorney that Mells was responsible for convincing his brother to confess to the murder, but Mells himself never actually talked to any state official. 3 Case: 11-14881 Date Filed: 07/16/2012 Page: 4 of 6 On October 7, 2011, the district court denied Mells’s petition for mandamus relief. The district court noted that, although the government may file a Rule 35(b) motion to reward substantial assistance, it may also refuse to exercise this power for any reason except for a constitutionally impermissible reason. The district court found that Mells failed to allege, much less make a substantial showing, that the government declined to file a Rule 35(b) motion for an unconstitutional motive. Mells timely appealed.