Appellant Manuel Hernandez appeals the district court's refusal to grant an evidentiary hearing on the government's motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. Hernandez pled guilty to drug crimes. As part of his plea agreement, he promised to assist the government by providing information concerning criminal activity. In turn, the government agreed to "fully advise the Court ... at the time of any motion made by the defendant pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 of the nature and extent" of Hernandez's cooperation. Further, the government agreed that if, in its discretion, it determined that Hernandez's post-sentence cooperation warranted an additional reduction in his sentence, the government would advise the court of his assistance, presumably through a Rule 35 motion.1 The district court reviewed and accepted the plea agreement.

Hernandez filed a Rule 35 motion and requested an evidentiary hearing. The government did not respond to this motion. The district court denied Hernandez's motion, as well as a subsequent motion for reconsideration. The government then filed a Rule 35 motion and a request for a hearing on Hernandez's assistance subsequent to his sentence. The motion, which for security reasons did not detail Hernandez's cooperation,2 was denied as was the government's motion for reconsideration. Hernandez appeals the denial of the government's motion.

We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(a)(1).3 United States v. Chavarria-Herrara, 15 F.3d 1033, 1035 (11th Cir.1994); United States v. Yesil, 991 F.2d 1527, 1531 n. 4 (11th Cir.1992). We do not review the district court's denial of the Rule 35 motion, but address only whether the effect of the ruling denying the hearing caused a violation of the plea agreement.4 Yesil, 991 F.2d at 1531. Further, we previously have recognized that in the context of the denial of a Rule 35 motion, a defendant may appeal the denial of a motion made by the government when the district court's ruling implicates the plea agreement. See United States v. Rueda, 19 F.3d 3 (11th Cir.1994). We allow such appeals to make the terms of the plea agreement fully enforceable. Although under the new version of Rule 35 only the government may request a reduction in a defendant's sentence, if the motion is made pursuant to a plea agreement, the rights of the defendant are implicated by the district court's refusal to hear evidence of a defendant's substantial assistance. If the defendant were not permitted to appeal, he or she would be effectively without recourse to enforce a breached plea agreement.

In this case, the plea agreement explicitly required only that the government make Hernandez's cooperation known to the district court in the event of a Rule 35 motion made by Hernandez. It also required, however, that if in the judgment of the government Hernandez's cooperation warranted a further reduction in sentence, it would so advise the court. Although the government did not explicitly pledge to file a Rule 35 motion, that promise must be implied because such a motion provides the only means by which Hernandez's sentence could be reduced. The government concedes that implicit in the agreement is the government's obligation to file a Rule 35 motion in the event that the government deemed Hernandez's cooperation subsequent to sentencing to be substantial. This interpretation is supported by the district court's review of the plea agreement with Hernandez. The court instructed Hernandez that the agreement "put the matter pretty much if not exclusively in the hands of the U.S. Attorney as to whether or not whatever cooperation you furnish will do you any good as far as getting your sentence reduced after it is imposed." This indicates that the district court read the plea agreement to require the government to file a Rule 35 motion in the event that it deemed Hernandez's cooperation substantial. We find that the plea agreement contained such an implicit promise.5

In this case, the government's position is that Hernandez's assistance subsequent to his sentence merits further reduction in his sentence. In refusing to have an evidentiary hearing, the district court effectively prevented the government from presenting its Rule 35 motion.6 Thus, we conclude that the district court's refusal to grant the government's request for an evidentiary hearing forced a breach of the plea agreement. Accordingly we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND this case for an evidentiary hearing.