USCA11 Case: 20-14644 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-14644
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00011-DHB-BKE-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY R. WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 19, 2021)
Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-14644 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 2 of 5
Anthony Williams received a 60-month sentence for conspiracy to commit
an offense against the United States. He appeals the district court’s denial of the
government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce his
sentence based on his substantial assistance in prosecuting one of his
coconspirators. He argues that the district court erred as a matter of law by failing
to evaluate his substantial assistance and by categorically refusing to consider the
government’s Rule 35(b) motion based on an impermissible factor: that he is a
retired U.S. Army Colonel. Williams argues that the district court believed that
high ranking military officers should comply with the law without an expectation
of leniency and that they should not be eligible for sentence reductions under Rule
35(b). He argues that the district court violated his right to due process and
misapplied the law by imposing this standard.
We first determine whether we are vested with jurisdiction to consider
Williams’s appeal. See United States v. Lopez,
562 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir.
2009). We review our own jurisdiction de novo.
Id. Upon motion by the
government, a district court may reduce a sentence if the defendant has provided
substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person. Fed. R. Crim.
P. 35(b). Because we view a district court’s ruling on a Rule 35(b) motion as an
“otherwise final sentence,” we have held that such rulings are governed by 18
U.S.C. § 3742. United States v. Manella,
86 F.3d 201, 202–03 (11th Cir. 1996)
2
USCA11 Case: 20-14644 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 3 of 5
(per curiam). Section 3742 only allows for limited review of federal sentences.
Id.
In Manella, we noted that the district court’s decision to deny or grant a Rule 35(b)
motion is discretionary, and that generally such a decision will not be appealable
under § 3742 because a defendant may not challenge the merits of the
determination or the extent of the reduction. Id. However, we do have jurisdiction
to hear a challenge that the district court misapplied Rule 35(b)—like Williams
argues here—because that is an argument that the sentence was imposed in
violation of law, which is permitted by § 3742(a)(1). Id. at 203. We therefore
have jurisdiction over Williams’s appeal.
On the merits, we review the application of law to sentencing issues de
novo. Id. We find that the district court did not misapply Rule 35(b) or otherwise
commit legal error in denying the government’s motion.
First, we disagree with Williams’s argument that the district court violated
his right to due process. A prosecutor has the discretion to file a Rule 35(b) motion
when a defendant has provided substantial assistance but is not required to. See
Murphy v. United States,
634 F.3d 1303, 1313 (11th Cir. 2011). As such, we have
held that these motions produce no protected right to give rise to a due process
claim. See United States v. Alvarez,
115 F.3d 839, 841 (11th Cir. 1997),
superseded on other grounds by Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b).
3
USCA11 Case: 20-14644 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 4 of 5
We also disagree with Williams’s argument that the district court misapplied
Rule 35(b). The only factor that may militate in favor of a Rule 35(b) reduction is
the defendant’s substantial assistance. Manella,
86 F.3d at 204. However, Rule
35(b) does not limit what factors may militate against granting a Rule 35(b)
motion.
Id. (declining to adopt a prior unpublished opinion that vacated and
remanded the denial of a Rule 35(b) motion on the basis that the defendant’s
sentence was already “excessively lenient”).
There is no indication that the district court failed to consider Williams’s
level of cooperation, or the facts related to his cooperation. In fact, the record
shows that the district court explicitly acknowledged that the government had
found that Williams cooperated in a substantial to very substantial manner and
listened to the parties’ undisputed arguments related to his cooperation. And the
district court did not impose a categorical rule that retired military officers could
not receive a sentence reduction under Rule 35(b), as Williams contends. Rather,
the record demonstrates that the district court permissibly considered several
factors in denying the government’s motion, including the seriousness of the
offense, the need to deter powerful individuals from abusing their power, and
Williams’s already-lenient sentence, in addition to his history and characteristics as
a U.S. Army Colonel. The district court noted that it had higher expectations for
Army officers and that Williams and individuals like him who have gained so
4
USCA11 Case: 20-14644 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 5 of 5
much from the government should cooperate with the government without a “price
tag.” However, the district court did not state that all Army officers should be
precluded from a substantial-assistance reduction, and the district court thoroughly
considered the motion with respect to Williams as an individual. Accordingly, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED.
5
