United States v. Jon Scott Merritt
674 F. App'x 968
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jon Merritt pleaded guilty to federal offenses and was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment.
- Merritt moved to compel the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion for sentence reduction based on alleged substantial assistance; the district court denied that motion.
- He filed a second motion to compel and also requested an evidentiary hearing to investigate alleged improper motives for the government's refusal; the district court denied both requests.
- Merritt argued the government refused to file a Rule 35(b) motion in retaliation for his having filed the first motion to compel.
- The central procedural posture: Merritt appealed only the denial of the request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion to compel a Rule 35(b) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on Merritt's motion to compel a Rule 35(b) motion | Merritt: He provided substantial assistance so the government had no legitimate reason to refuse filing; refusal must be retaliatory for his prior motion, entitling him to a hearing | Government: It has discretion whether to file a Rule 35(b) motion; refusal is reviewable only if defendant makes a substantial threshold showing of unconstitutional motive, which Merritt did not make | Court: Affirmed. Denial was not an abuse of discretion because Merritt failed to make the necessary threshold showing of an unconstitutional motive (mere generalized or retaliatory allegations insufficient) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 (establishes that government has power, not duty, to file substantial-assistance motions and limits judicial review to claims of unconstitutional motive)
- United States v. Winfield, 960 F.2d 970 (district court review of denial of evidentiary hearing on Rule 35(b) motion reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. McNeese, 547 F.3d 1307 (applies Wade to Rule 35(b) context)
- United States v. Dorsey, 554 F.3d 958 (generalized allegations of improper motive do not entitle defendant to remedy or evidentiary hearing)