United States v. Sandra Fernandez Viera
691 F. App'x 557
11th Cir.2017Background
- Sandra Viera was convicted of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and to receive/pay health-care kickbacks under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1349.
- The government filed a renewed Rule 35(b) motion seeking a reduction for substantial assistance; government requested a 40% reduction (court initially mischaracterized it as 33%).
- The district court granted a 33% reduction and declined to hold an evidentiary hearing on the extent of Viera’s cooperation.
- Viera appealed, arguing the court violated due process by failing to ascertain all relevant facts of cooperation, by mischaracterizing the government’s request, and by abusing discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.
- The government’s written submissions detailed Viera’s cooperation; there was no plea provision obligating the government to fully apprize the court of cooperation facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting a 33% Rule 35(b) reduction (vs. government’s 40% request) violated law or due process | Viera: court failed to consider all relevant facts and mischaracterized government’s request, so reduction lacked individualized consideration | Government/District Court: court considered cooperation and other sentencing factors and explicitly intended 33% reduction despite earlier misstatement | Court: no violation; district court lawfully limited the reduction and considered appropriate factors |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying evidentiary hearing on cooperation | Viera: hearing needed to establish extent/nature of cooperation and associated risks | Government/District Court: written submissions sufficiently described cooperation; no plea agreement bound court to accept government proffer; court had discretion to deny hearing | Court: no abuse of discretion; hearing not required because the submissions and record supplied sufficient information |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir.) (standard for review of sentencing law and Rule interpretation)
- United States v. Manella, 86 F.3d 201 (11th Cir.) (Rule 35(b) reductions limited to substantial assistance; court may consider other factors in sizing reduction)
- United States v. Yesil, 991 F.2d 1527 (11th Cir.) (when plea agreement requires government to advise court of cooperation, district court must accept proffer and may need an evidentiary hearing)
- United States v. Hernandez, 34 F.3d 998 (11th Cir.) (same principle as Yesil regarding plea bargains that bind the court)