Opinion ID: 626902
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 2011 Pro Se Motion

Text: In 2011, Bell filed the instant pro se motion asking the district court to enforce the plea agreement and compel the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion. Bell’s motion claimed that the government had breached the plea agreement by “failing to make known to the court the Nature and Extent of defendant[’]s Cooperation” through either a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion at sentencing or a post-sentencing Rule 35(b) motion to reduce Bell’s sentence. Bell’s motion cited several instances of his pre- and post-sentencing cooperation and contended that the government’s refusal to file a substantial assistance motion was in bad faith and not rationally related to a legitimate government end. The district court denied Bell’s motion. The court found that Bell “wholly failed to demonstrate that the Government’s decision not to file a motion for reduction of sentence was based on an unconstitutional motive.” The court denied Bell’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. Bell filed this appeal.1 1 Bell’s pro se notice of appeal states that he is appealing the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. However, it is clear from Bell’s argument on appeal that his overriding intent is to appeal the denial of his underlying pro se motion to enforce the plea agreement. See KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 465 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006). 4