United States v. Sandra Fernandez Viera

Case: 16-13304 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-13304
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20318-KMM-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SANDRA FERNANDEZ VIERA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 17, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-13304 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Page: 2 of 7
Sandra Viera, convicted of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and
conspiracy to receive and pay health care kickbacks under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and
1349, appeals the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part the
government’s motion for a sentence reduction and evidentiary hearing brought
pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). On appeal, Viera contends the district court
violated her due process rights by failing to ascertain all the relevant facts of
Viera’s cooperation prior to ordering her sentence reduced. Viera argues the
circumstances of the reduction, in which the district court mischaracterized the
government’s requested reduction as 33% rather than 40%, reveal the district court
failed to undertake an individualized consideration of the sentencing factors before
granting only the 33% reduction. Viera adds that the district court abused its
discretion by failing to hold the evidentiary hearing that both she and the
government requested.
The district court did not impose the 33% sentence reduction in violation of
law or Viera’s due process rights. The record demonstrates the district court
considered appropriate factors when determining the size of Viera’s reduction, and
Viera failed to show that the district court relied on inaccurate or unreliable
information in determining the size of the reduction. Second, the district court did
not abuse its discretion by declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing to review
the nature and extent of Viera’s cooperation with the government. The
2
Case: 16-13304 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Page: 3 of 7
government fully explained the relevant details of Viera’s cooperation in its
renewed Rule 35(b) motion, and the district court had significant discretion to
determine whether the circumstances warranted an evidentiary hearing.
Accordingly, we affirm.
I.
In granting a 33% reduction, rather than a 40% reduction, under Rule 35(b),
the district court did not violate Viera’s rights to due process or impose the
reduction in violation of law. We review de novo the application of law to
sentencing issues, as well as the district court’s interpretation of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure. United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir.
2006) (en banc); United States v. Manella, 86 F.3d 201, 203 (11th Cir. 1996).
Upon the government’s motion, a court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if
she “provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another
person.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)(1). Generally, we do not review a district court’s
discretionary decision to grant or deny a Rule 35(b) substantial-assistance motion.
United States v. Manella, 86 F.3d 201, 203 (11th Cir. 1996). However, we will
consider whether a court misapplied Rule 35(b) by considering inappropriate
factors, and thus imposing the reduced sentence “in violation of law.” Id. A
sentencing court may award a reduction only on the basis of a defendant’s
substantial assistance. Id. at 204. However, that court may limit the size of the
3
Case: 16-13304 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Page: 4 of 7
reduction based on its consideration of factors other than the defendant’s
substantial assistance. Id. at 204–05.
The district court’s imposition of a 33% reduction, rather than a 40%
reduction, did not violate law. First, the district court did not violate Viera’s due
process rights by imposing that sentence reduction. As discussed below, the
district court did not need to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the extent of
Viera’s cooperation. Additionally, Viera failed to identify the “unreliable
information” the district court rested upon in determining the sentencing reduction
under Rule 35(b). In ruling on the government’s renewed Rule 35(b) motion, the
district court noted its awareness that the government advocated for a 40%
reduction, and clarified that it nonetheless intended to reduce Viera’s sentence by
33%, regardless of the earlier misstatement of the government’s position. The
district court further noted that it considered Viera’s conduct and cooperation when
determining the size of the reduction to impose. Because the district court did not
impose the 33% reduction “in violation of law,” we affirm.
II.
In ruling on the government’s Rule 35(b) motion, the district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing. We review the district
court’s refusal to grant an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of a Rule
4
Case: 16-13304 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Page: 5 of 7
35(b) motion for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Yesil, 991 F.2d 1527,
1531 (11th Cir. 1992).
In some circumstances, the government’s Rule 35(b) motion fails to fully
explain the details of a defendant’s substantial assistance. For example, in United
States v. Yesil, 991 F.2d at 1528, and United States v. Hernandez, 34 F.3d 998,
999 (11th Cir. 1994), the defendants pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with the
government in exchange for the government’s promise to advise the district court
of the nature and extent of their cooperation. In both cases, the government
subsequently filed a Rule 35(b) motion that provided incomplete details and
cursory evidence of the defendants’ cooperation, and instead requested a hearing.
Yesil at 1529–30; Hernandez at 999–1000. Both district courts summarily denied
the joint Rule 35(b) motion without an evidentiary hearing. Yesil at 1530;
Hernandez at 1000.
On appeal, we held in both instances that the district court abused its
discretion by refusing to conduct evidentiary hearings because the district court
was obligated to accept the government’s proffer concerning the defendants’
cooperation once it accepted the plea bargains that required the government to
advise it of the nature and extent of the defendants’ cooperation. Yesil at 1531–32;
Hernandez at 1000. In arriving at this determination, we noted that this plea
bargain severely curtailed the district court’s usual discretion because, once
5
Case: 16-13304 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Page: 6 of 7
accepted, the plea agreement also bound the court. Yesil at 1531–32; Hernandez at
1001. Those defendants were entitled to relief once the court denied them the
benefits of their plea agreements.
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion or impose the 33%
reduction to Viera’s sentence in violation of her due process rights. Unlike Yesil
and Hernandez, the government did not promise to fully apprise the district court
of any circumstances for a Rule 35(b) motion. Thus, the district court’s discretion
to deny an evidentiary hearing was not curtailed because the court was not bound
by any provision in the plea agreement. See Yesil, 991 F.2d at 1528.
Second, the government’s written submission outlining Viera’s cooperation
and the potential differences between her cooperation and that of her co-
conspirator sufficed to satisfy any requirement as to the district court’s knowledge.
See Hernandez, 34 F.3d at 1001 n.6. Particularly, Viera’s response provided the
court sufficient information about the wide extent of her cooperation. The district
court and the sentencing court were both aware of other sentencing factors
involved in the offense. Thus, they had the necessary information to determine not
only whether Viera deserved a reduction, but also whether other factors cut against
the size of the reduction requested by the government and Viera.
Even acknowledging that the district court imposed the 33% reduction prior
to receiving all of the government’s information, none of the additional facts that
6
Case: 16-13304 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Page: 7 of 7
Viera identified in her reply brief required elicitation in an evidentiary hearing
before the district court could reasonably consider the information. For example,
though Viera does not allege that she faced any specific threats of harm, she
generally asserts that the simple act of cooperation opens oneself to potential harm.
The district court did not need an evidentiary hearing to elicit this generally-
accepted reality of cooperation; thus, the court held significant discretion to decline
to hold one. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order denying the
government and Viera’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the Rule 35(b)
motion.
AFFIRMED.
7