United States v. Jonathan Nelson, 932 F.3d 279

Defendant (John Doe) stole over $77 million from his employer (1998–2005), pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 300 months (25 years), above the Guidelines range.
The sentence was affirmed on direct appeal in 2007. The government later filed Rule 35(b) substantial-assistance motions in 2013 (denied) and 2017 (denied); the 2017 denial is the subject of this appeal.
The 2017 Rule 35(b) motion and supporting filing were sealed; the district court issued a one-page order denying the motion after stating it had considered the motion, Doe’s memorandum, the offense conduct, and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Doe appealed the denial, arguing multiple procedural and substantive errors arising from the district court’s terse order.
The Fifth Circuit considered (but did not definitively resolve) which statute supplies appellate jurisdiction for Rule 35(b) denials, acknowledging a circuit split between 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, but applied circuit precedent (McMahan) holding § 3742 applicable.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court’s denial was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable and rejecting the argument that Rule 35(b) requires a rigid two-step written finding before denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Doe)	Defendant's Argument (Government / Court)	Held
Jurisdiction over appeal of denial of Rule 35(b) motion	Appeal proper under § 3742(a)(1)	Circuit precedent McMahan binds court to § 3742(a)(1)	Applied § 3742(a)(1) per binding precedent (but noted circuit split)
Procedural requirements for denying Rule 35(b) motion	District court must perform a two-step analysis: (1) find substantial assistance then (2) decide reduction amount; must make express findings	Rule 35(b) is discretionary; no textual or Fifth Circuit precedent requires express two-step findings before denial; court may consider § 3553(a) factors	Denial was procedurally reasonable; no rigid two-step or written-findings requirement imposed
Use of § 3553(a) factors when denying a Rule 35(b) motion	Court should not mix § 3553(a) in denying relief	§ 3553(a) factors may be considered in exercising discretion to deny; nothing forbids consideration	Court permissibly considered § 3553(a) and offense conduct in denying motion
Substantive reviewability of a Rule 35(b) denial	Doe’s extraordinary cooperation demanded relief; denial was substantively unreasonable	§ 3742(a)(1) limits review to sentences imposed in violation of law; discretionary denials generally not reviewable on the merits; no preserved argument that denial amounted to legal error	Denial not substantively unreasonable; appellant forfeited any argument transforming Rule 35(b) discretion into a mandatory command; affirmed

United States v. McMahan, 872 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 2017) (held appellate jurisdiction over Rule 35(b) denials exists under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1), binding here)
United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706 (5th Cir. 2018) (held § 1291 governs review of certain sentence-reduction denials; discussed circuit split)
United States v. Grant, 636 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (limits on factors considered when imposing a new sentence after granting Rule 35(b))
United States v. Katsman, 905 F.3d 672 (2d Cir. 2018) (affirmed district court that found substantial assistance but denied reduction; shows one acceptable approach but does not create mandatory rule)
Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (Rule 35(b) relief depends on postsentencing cooperation; cooperation is necessary for Rule 35(b) grant)
United States v. Matovsky, 935 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1991) (district courts need not make express findings where guidelines do not require them)
United States v. Lightfoot, 724 F.3d 593 (5th Cir. 2013) (discusses standard of review and appellate treatment of sentencing matters)
United States v. Sinclair, 1 F.3d 329 (5th Cir. 1993) (suggests review for illegality or gross abuse of discretion for Rule 35 questions but did not resolve jurisdictional basis)