United States v. Anthony R. Williams, 20-14644

Anthony Williams, a retired U.S. Army Colonel, was sentenced to 60 months for conspiracy against the United States.
The government filed a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion seeking a sentence reduction based on Williams’s substantial assistance in prosecuting a coconspirator.
The district court denied the Rule 35(b) motion after considering Williams’s cooperation but citing factors including offense seriousness, deterrence of powerful actors, his already-lenient sentence, and his military status (not as a categorical bar).
Williams appealed, arguing the district court (1) failed to evaluate his substantial assistance, (2) misapplied Rule 35(b) by categorically refusing relief to retired military officers, and (3) violated his due process rights.
The Eleventh Circuit examined whether it had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 to review an alleged legal misapplication of Rule 35(b), reviewed the legal issues de novo, and ultimately affirmed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appellate jurisdiction to review denial of Rule 35(b)	Williams argued the court may review alleged legal misapplication of Rule 35(b)	The government relied on precedent allowing review only for legal errors under § 3742	Court has jurisdiction to review claimed legal misapplication under § 3742
Due process right to a Rule 35(b) motion	Williams claimed denial violated due process because he had a protected interest in relief	Government argued Rule 35(b) motions are discretionary and confer no protected right	No due process violation; no protected right in a Rule 35(b) motion
Whether district court misapplied Rule 35(b) by categorically excluding retired military officers	Williams argued the court imposed a categorical prohibition on officers receiving reductions	Government argued the court permissibly weighed many factors and did not impose a categorical rule	No misapplication: court did not categorically bar military officers and considered Williams individually
Whether court failed to consider Williams’s substantial assistance	Williams claimed the court ignored his level of cooperation	Government pointed to record showing court acknowledged substantial to very substantial cooperation and heard parties	Court considered the cooperation but denied relief based on permissible countervailing factors

United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2009) (reviews appellate jurisdiction questions de novo)
United States v. Manella, 86 F.3d 201 (11th Cir. 1996) (treats Rule 35(b) rulings as "otherwise final" sentences and permits review for misapplication of law)
Murphy v. United States, 634 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2011) (recognizes prosecutorial discretion to file Rule 35(b) motions)
United States v. Alvarez, 115 F.3d 839 (11th Cir. 1997) (holds Rule 35(b) motions create no protected due process interest)