Affirmation of Prosecutorial Discretion in Rule 35(b) Motions: United States v. Garces Hurtado
1. Introduction
United States v. Eulogio Garces Hurtado (11th Cir. Jan. 14, 2025) addresses the scope of the government’s obligation, if any, to file a sentence‐reduction motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) when a defendant has provided cooperation or “substantial assistance.” At issue was whether the district court erred in refusing to compel the U.S. Attorney to file such a motion on appellant’s behalf. In a per curiam opinion authored by the Eleventh Circuit panel (Judges Rosenbaum, Branch, and Abudu), the court affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that absent an unambiguous, binding agreement to file a Rule 35(b) motion, the government retains absolute discretion to refuse—and its refusal is reviewable only if based on unconstitutional motives or irrational considerations.
Parties:
- Plaintiff‐Appellee: United States of America
- Defendant‐Appellant: Eulogio Garces Hurtado
2. Summary of the Judgment
In April 2017, a federal grand jury indicted Garces Hurtado on two vessel‐based cocaine trafficking counts. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy in a written plea agreement in which the government agreed to “consider” a downward departure motion under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, a statutory‐minimum reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), or a post‐sentencing Rule 35(b) motion for substantial assistance. At sentencing, the government declined to move under § 5K1.1 and indicated no immediate Rule 35(b) motion was anticipated. The court imposed the mandatory 240‐month sentence.
Six years later, Hurtado filed a motion to compel the U.S. Attorney to file a Rule 35(b) motion, relying on (1) the written agreement’s promise to “consider” such a motion, and (2) an alleged promise from an unidentified “agent.” The district court denied relief, finding no unconditional promise to file and no allegation of unconstitutional motive in refusing. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed: Hurtado had not shown any binding commitment to file, nor did he meet the Wade standard for challenging the government’s discretionary refusal.
3. Analysis
3.1. Precedents Cited
- Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 (1992): Held that, absent an agreement imposing a duty, courts may review the government’s refusal to move for a downward departure under Rule 35(b) only if the defendant makes a “substantial threshold showing” that the refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive (e.g., race, religion) or was irrational.
- United States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492 (11th Cir. 1993): Applied Wade to Rule 35(b), confirming government discretion and applying the “unconstitutional motive” limitation to review of refusals.
- United States v. McNeese, 547 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2008): Extended Wade’s rationale to post‐sentencing Rule 35(b) motions, reaffirming prosecutorial discretion absent a clear promise.
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971): Established that when a plea is induced by a prosecutor’s promise, the promise must be fulfilled or the plea vacated.
- United States v. Jeffries, 908 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir. 1990): Ordered specific performance of a plea agreement under Santobello’s teachings when the government breached an explicit promise.
3.2. Legal Reasoning
The Eleventh Circuit’s core holding rests on two interconnected principles:
- Government Discretion Under Rule 35(b): Rule 35(b) vests absolute power, not an obligation, in the government to move for a sentence reduction when a defendant provides substantial assistance. The Eleventh Circuit has uniformly applied Wade, requiring a “substantial threshold showing” of unconstitutional motivation or irrationality before any district court review of a refusal.
- Contractual Promises Must Be Clear: Under Santobello and its progeny, a plea agreement promise can bind the government. However, here the written plea agreement merely bound the government to “consider” filing a Rule 35(b) motion, preserving prosecutorial discretion. The alleged oral promise by an anonymous “agent” was too vague, unsworn, and unsupported by factual specifics to impose a binding duty.
Because Hurtado failed to identify any unambiguous contractual commitment and did not allege that the refusal was tainted by unconstitutional motive or rationality concerns, Wade governed and the refusal was unreviewable.
3.3. Impact
This decision reinforces and clarifies several points for practitioners and cooperating defendants:
- Clarity in Plea Agreements: Defendants and counsel must negotiate and document any agreement to file a Rule 35(b) motion in explicit, binding terms. Mere “consideration” clauses preserve absolute prosecutorial discretion.
- Limits on After‐the‐Fact Promises: Informal or oral promises by unidentified agents cannot create enforceable obligations unless confirmed in writing, supported by affidavit, and directly incorporated into the plea agreement.
- Review Standard Remains High: Absent a binding agreement, defendants must make a substantial prima facie showing of unconstitutional motive or irrationality to challenge a refusal. Routine disagreements over sufficiency of assistance will remain outside judicial review.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
- Rule 35(b) Motion: A post‐sentencing mechanism allowing the government, at its option, to ask the court to reduce a defendant’s sentence when the defendant has “substantially assisted” in investigating or prosecuting others.
- Substantial Assistance: Cooperation that significantly aids in the government’s investigation or prosecution of other offenders, often leading to indictments or convictions.
- Wade Standard: A Supreme Court rule that says courts can only review the government’s refusal to make certain prosecutorial motions if the refusal is shown to be based on unconstitutional grounds (race, religion) or is entirely irrational.
- Santobello Doctrine: When a plea is induced by a prosecutor’s promise, due process requires that the government fulfill that promise or the plea must be vacated.
5. Conclusion
United States v. Garces Hurtado reaffirms the principle that, in the absence of an unequivocal contractual commitment, the government retains complete discretion under Rule 35(b) to decide whether to file a substantial‐assistance motion. It underscores the high bar—anchored in Wade—for judicial review of any refusal, requiring clear evidence of unconstitutional bias or irrational decision‐making. Cooperating defendants are thus reminded to secure precise, written promises in plea agreements if they wish to have enforceable rights to post‐sentencing relief.
Comments