U.S. v. ROSS, 4:06-CR-00284-04-BRW. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20140424760
Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2014
Summary: ORDER BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge. Pending is Defendant's Motion for Judicial Review of Government's Failure to File a Rule 35 Sentence Reduction (Doc. No. 206). The Prosecution has responded. 1 Defendant is entitled to relief if he "makes a `substantial threshold showing'" that the Prosecution's refusal to file a downward departure was based on a constitutionally impermissible reason ( e.g., race or religion). 2 "[A] claim that a defendant merely provided substantial assistance will
Summary: ORDER BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge. Pending is Defendant's Motion for Judicial Review of Government's Failure to File a Rule 35 Sentence Reduction (Doc. No. 206). The Prosecution has responded. 1 Defendant is entitled to relief if he "makes a `substantial threshold showing'" that the Prosecution's refusal to file a downward departure was based on a constitutionally impermissible reason ( e.g., race or religion). 2 "[A] claim that a defendant merely provided substantial assistance will ..
More
ORDER
BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge.
Pending is Defendant's Motion for Judicial Review of Government's Failure to File a Rule 35 Sentence Reduction (Doc. No. 206). The Prosecution has responded.1
Defendant is entitled to relief if he "makes a `substantial threshold showing'" that the Prosecution's refusal to file a downward departure was based on a constitutionally impermissible reason (e.g., race or religion).2 "[A] claim that a defendant merely provided substantial assistance will not entitle a defendant to a remedy or even to discovery or an evidentiary hearing. Nor would additional but generalized allegations of improper motive."3 Defendant's "bare assertions of substantial assistance are insufficient to trigger the need for an evidentiary hearing."4
Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Doc. Nos. 207, 210.
2. Wade v. U.S., 504 U.S. 181, 186 (1992).
3. Id.
4. U.S. v. Holdby, 489 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2007); United States v. Mullins, 399 F.3d 888, 890 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that defendant's assertion she provided substantial assistance and was willing to provide continued assistance did "not support any inference the government acted unconstitutionally or irrationally in refusing to move for a downward departure based on substantial assistance"); United States v. Hardy, 325 F.3d 994, 996 (8th Cir. 2003) (finding no irrationality where the government claimed it declined to move for a substantial assistance downward departure because the individuals about which the defendant proffered were arrested or convicted based on other means).
Source: Leagle
