CHARLES KORNMANN, District Judge
Defendant was sentenced on March 15, 2004, to 130 months custody for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The government agreed, as part of the written plea agreement, to evaluate the defendant's cooperation and, if it determined that the defendant's cooperation constituted substantial assistance in the investigation and prosecution of others, to file a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. Defendant filed a motion, Doc. 101, for a reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35.
This Court's authority to amend a judgment is limited to the conditions set forth in Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 and 36. Rule 35(b) authorizes the district court to reduce a sentence "on motion of the Government made within one year after the imposition of the sentence . . . to reflect a defendant's subsequent, substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense." Rule 35(b) is similar to a motion for a substantial assistance departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Both motions may only be made by the government. The United States Court of Appeals has held that a prosecutor's discretionary decision not to file such a motion "may be challenged only if the defendant makes a `substantial threshold showing' of prosecutorial discrimination or irrational conduct."United States v. Romsey, 975 F.2d 556, 557-58 (8th Cir. 1992). "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." United States v. Romsey, 975 F.2d at 558, (quoting Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 186, 112 S. Ct. 1840, 1844, 118 L. Ed. 2d 524 (1992)). Defendant has not alleged that the government has refused to file a motion for suspect reasons.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion for a reduction of sentence, Doc. 101, is denied.