ORDER

ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on;

Dkt. 229 Motion to Reduce Sentence (Rule 35)

Defendant Nibson Ferney Mandinga Campaz, pro se, requests that the Court grant a Rule 35 reduction of Defendant's sentence.

The Court adopts and incorporates the Court's Order (Dkt. 208), which denied Defendant's Motion for An Order Compelling the Government to File a Rule 35 Motion to Reduce His Sentence.

After consideration, for the reasons explained in the Court's prior Order, the Court denies Defendant's Motion. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendant Nibson Ferney Mandinga Campaz' pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence (Rule 35) (Dkt. 229) is denied. The Court has attached a copy of the Court's prior Order. (Dkt. 208). The Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this Order to pro se Defendant by U.S. Mail.

DONE and ORDERED.

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on:

Defendant Nibson Ferney Mandinga Campaz, pro se, requests that the Court enter an order to compel the Government to file a Rule 35 Motion, because Defendant has provided substantial assistance.

Defendant Campaz entered into a Plea Agreement (Dkt. 123); Defendant Campaz entered a plea of guilty to Count 3 of the Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 76). Thereafter, Defendant Campaz was sentenced on January 25, 2013. (Dkts. 164, 168). Prior to sentencing, the Government filed a USSG Sec. 5K1.1 Motion (Dkt. 134) in which the Government requested that the Court grant a three level departure, i.e. reducing Defendant Campaz' Offense Level by three levels. The Government's Motion was granted. (Dkt. 167). At the time of sentencing, Counts 1, 2 and 4 of the Superseding Indictment were dismissed. (Dkt. 166).

Defendant Campaz filed a Sec. 2255 petition (Dkt. 199), which the Court denied (Dkt. 200).

The Court notes that Defendant Campaz entered into a Plea Agreement which acknowledges that the determination as to whether substantial assistance has been rendered or what type of motion will be filed rests solely with the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida. (Dkt. 123, pp. 4-5).

Federal district courts have authority to review a prosecutor's refusal to file a substantial assistance motion to grant a remedy if they find that the refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive, like race or religion. A defendant who merely claims to have provided substantial assistance or who makes only generalized allegations of an improper motive is not entitled to a remedy or even an evidentiary hearing. Judicial review is appropriate only when there is an allegation and a substantial showing that the prosecution refused to file a substantial assistance motion because of a constitutionally impermissible motivation See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 (1992); United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825 (11th Cir. 2000).

Defendant Campaz does not allege or make any showing that the Government has refused to file a substantial assistance motion because of a constitutionally impermissible motivation.

After consideration, the Court denies Defendant Campaz' Motion for Order Compelling the Government to File a Rule 35 Motion. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendant Nibson Ferney Mandinga Campaz' Motion for An Order Compelling the Government To File a Rule 35 Motion to Reduce His Sentence (Dkt. 207) is denied. The Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this Order to pro se Defendant Campaz via U.S. Mail.

DONE and ORDERED.