United States v. Lourdes Mora
703 F. App'x 836
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lourdes Mora, a licensed mental-health counselor, pled guilty in 2015 to conspiracy to commit health-care fraud for participating in a scheme that submitted $68 million in false Medicare claims.
- Her plea agreement permitted the government to move for a sentence reduction under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) if it determined she provided substantial assistance.
- Mora was sentenced to 108 months (low end of Guidelines range). The government later filed multiple Rule 35(b) motions, ultimately renewing a motion seeking a 40% reduction based on Mora’s cooperation (detailed proffer included).
- At a 2016 hearing, the government and Mora proffered facts (and the case agent was present and available to testify) about Mora’s early and ongoing cooperation, but no live testimony or evidence was introduced; the district court orally accepted the prosecutor’s credibility yet later said there was "no record" of evidence.
- The district court granted the Rule 35(b) motion in part, reducing the sentence to 84 months, but stated it relied principally on fairness and to mitigate sentencing disparities among co-conspirators rather than on Mora’s substantial assistance.
- Mora appealed, arguing the district court erred by (1) refusing to treat the parties’ undisputed proffer as evidence, (2) declining to hear the case agent’s testimony, and (3) relying on impermissible factors (sentencing disparities/fairness) instead of Mora’s substantial assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mora) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review Rule 35(b) partial grant | Court may review legal errors in a Rule 35(b) decision | Government did not invoke plea-waiver; appellate review appropriate for legal errors | Court has jurisdiction to review alleged legal errors under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and Manella |
| Whether proffer constituted admissible evidence of substantial assistance | The written and oral proffers (and presence of case agent) were undisputed and should be treated as evidence | Government relied on its proffer and asked court to credit it | District court erred as a matter of law by refusing to consider the undisputed factual proffer as evidence; vacated and remanded |
| Whether the court should have allowed the case agent to testify | Agent was present and could have provided testimony to corroborate the proffer | Government indicated proffer was credible and agent was available if needed | Court erred in declining to consider the proffer and should on remand consider the proffer (agent testimony optional if court needs it) |
| Proper factors for granting Rule 35(b) relief | Reduction should be based on Mora’s substantial assistance and can factor fairness relative to co-defendants | Government sought reduction based on Mora’s cooperation; did not ask that fairness alone justify relief | Court reaffirmed that a Rule 35(b) reduction may be granted only to reflect defendant’s substantial assistance; other factors may weigh against reduction but may not be the sole basis for granting relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Hays v. Kerner, 515 U.S. 737 (jurisdictional obligation of federal courts)
- Lopez v. United States, 562 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing jurisdictional questions)
- Manella v. United States, 86 F.3d 201 (11th Cir. 1996) (Rule 35(b) reductions address only subsequent substantial assistance; appellate review for legal error)
- Chavarria-Herrara v. United States, 15 F.3d 1033 (11th Cir. 1994) (Rule 35(b) reductions may be granted only to reflect defendant’s substantial assistance)
- Valle v. United States, 929 F.2d 629 (11th Cir.) (limiting bases for Rule 35(b) reductions to substantial assistance)
- Hernandez v. United States, 34 F.3d 998 (11th Cir.) (parties’ proffers can constitute sufficient evidence)
- Tadio v. United States, 663 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.) (contrasting view on whether Rule 35 allows other-factor consideration; cited and distinguished)