United States v. Baker, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20664

Background

Frederick Baker pleaded guilty to two counts in a fraud indictment and was sentenced in October 2011 to 41 months' imprisonment (bottom of guideline range).
Three weeks after sentencing Baker met with prosecutors, provided detailed information and offered to testify against co-defendant Mark Akins; an AUSA said he would recommend a sentence reduction based on cooperation.
Akins pled guilty and was sentenced within one year of Baker’s sentencing; Baker’s information was used in plea/sentencing preparation and later in a restitution hearing held more than one year after Baker’s sentencing.
The Government filed a Rule 35(b) motion to reduce Baker’s sentence 15+ months after sentencing and invoked Rule 35(b)(2)(B) (information provided within one year but not useful until after one year).
The Government had represented to the district court that Baker’s information was useful both before and after the one-year mark; the district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 35(b)(2)(B) and denied relief.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Rule 35(b)(2)(B)’s requirement that information “did not become useful” means it first became useful only after the one-year mark and does not cover information that was useful both before and after that date.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court had jurisdiction under Rule 35(b)(2)(B) to consider a >1-year post-sentencing motion	Baker: his assistance should qualify because the full extent/value of his help (including usefulness at restitution) wasn’t known until after one year	Government: initially conceded information was useful both before and after one year; later argued some parts only became useful after the one-year mark	Held: No jurisdiction—Rule 35(b)(2)(B) requires the info to first become useful after one year; info useful both before and after does not qualify
Whether courts may interpret Rule 35(b)(2)(B) to permit >1-year motions when the extent of usefulness is not measurable within one year	Baker: court should interpret rule to allow filings where the value or extent of assistance only becomes ascertainable after one year	Government: could have preserved jurisdiction by filing within one year and asking court to defer ruling; it failed to do so	Held: Courts cannot extend the rule beyond its plain text; filing within one year is the safeguard
Whether lower-court precedent (e.g., Morales) requires broader reading of Rule 35(b)	Baker: relies on broader precedents that interpreted prior versions expansively	Government: follows text and majority of circuits declining Morales’ approach	Held: Tenth Circuit declines to follow Morales-style expansion and applies Rule’s plain meaning
Whether appellate court may rewrite a jurisdictional rule to avoid harsh result	Baker: equitable considerations warrant expansion to avoid denying substantive benefit for cooperation	Government: jurisdictional limits constrain courts; Congress did not authorize broader relief	Held: Court will not rewrite jurisdictional limits; must apply Rule as written

Key Cases Cited

United States v. McMillan, 106 F.3d 322 (10th Cir. 1997) (procedural authority on appeals from sentence modification decisions)
United States v. Luna-Acosta, 715 F.3d 860 (10th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for Rule 35 jurisdictional questions)
United States v. Blackwell, 81 F.3d 945 (10th Cir. 1996) (only government may move under Rule 35(b))
United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2013) (courts generally lack power to modify a sentence once imposed)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (limitations on post‑sentence modifications)
United States v. Price, 438 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2006) (district courts may modify sentences only as expressly authorized)
United States v. Green, 405 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2005) (statutory framework for sentence modification)
United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1979) (time limits in Rule 35 are jurisdictional)
United States v. McGaughy, 670 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2012) (Rule 35(a) time limit is jurisdictional)
United States v. Orozco, 160 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 1998) (interpreting prior Rule 35(b) and rejecting expansive readings)
United States v. Carey, 120 F.3d 509 (4th Cir. 1997) (applying Rule 35(b)’s unambiguous text)
United States v. Morales, 52 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 1995) (interpreting prior Rule 35(b) broadly; not followed by majority)