United States v. Carson William Matute-Rankin
702 F. App'x 969
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Carson William Matute-Rankin pleaded guilty and preserved that the government would consider his cooperation for a Rule 35(b) substantial-assistance motion.
- The plea agreement and plea colloquy expressly left to the U.S. Attorney the determination whether assistance was "substantial" and what motion, if any, to file.
- The government reviewed Matute-Rankin’s information about hidden compartments and cocaine transport and moved for a four-level downward departure under Rule 35(b).
- The district court reduced his sentence from 292 months to 188 months on the government’s recommendation.
- Matute-Rankin claimed a breach: he asserted (but did not produce) a supplemental/third-party agreement promising larger, specific reductions tied to cooperation (e.g., per boat/crew).
- The district court did not consider unsigned affidavits and exhibits not in the record; Matute-Rankin did not show a supplemental agreement or unconstitutional motivation by prosecutors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government breached the plea agreement by seeking only a four-level reduction | Matute-Rankin: a supplemental/third-party agreement guaranteed larger, specific reductions for his cooperation | Government: plea agreement only required the government to consider cooperation and exercise prosecutorial discretion on filing and extent of any Rule 35 motion | No breach; agreement promised only consideration, and government acted within its discretion |
| Whether appellate review is available for the Rule 35(b) reduction decision | Matute-Rankin: challenges government’s alleged breach (seeking reviewable contract claim) | Government: Rule 35(b) reductions are generally discretionary and not appealable on the merits | Court has jurisdiction to review breach claims; review of alleged breach is de novo, but here no breach shown |
| Whether Matute-Rankin provided admissible evidence of a supplemental agreement | Matute-Rankin: attached unsigned affidavit and son's letter asserting promises | Government: those items were not presented to district court and are outside the record | Court refused to consider evidence not presented below; exhibits attached to brief were not considered |
| Whether prosecutor exercised discretion for impermissible reasons (constitutional limitation) | Matute-Rankin: implied that motivation may have been improper by not seeking larger reductions | Government: no constitutionally impermissible motive; exercised normal discretion | No allegation or proof of constitutionally impermissible motivation; discretionary decision stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Manella, 86 F.3d 201 (11th Cir. 1996) (Rule 35(b) reductions are generally discretionary and not subject to appellate review)
- United States v. Hunter, 835 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2016) (review of alleged plea-agreement breach is de novo)
- United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185 (11th Cir. 1994) (statements made during plea colloquy carry a strong presumption of truth)
- United States v. McNeese, 547 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2008) (Rule 35(b) gives the government a power, not a duty, to file a motion for substantial assistance)
- United States v. Cross, 928 F.2d 1030 (11th Cir. 1991) (district court and appellate court generally will not consider factual claims outside the record)
- United States v. Orozco, 160 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 1998) (determination whether to file a Rule 35(b) motion and the extent of reduction is reserved to the government)
- Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 (1992) (prosecutorial discretion in Rule 35(b) is subject to constitutional limits enforceable by courts)
- United States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492 (11th Cir. 1993) (failure to show constitutionally impermissible motivation defeats challenge to prosecutor’s exercise of Rule 35(b) discretion)