United States v. Nathalie Zuanetti

Case: 15-14042 Date Filed: 08/02/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14042
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cr-00108-GKS-TBS-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NATHALIE ZUANETTI,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 2, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-14042 Date Filed: 08/02/2016 Page: 2 of 3
Nathalie Zuanetti appeals the district court’s denial of the Government’s
post-sentencing motion, filed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b), to reduce Zuanetti’s
sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methylone. Zuanetti
contends (1) the district court was bound by the Government’s determination that
she had rendered substantial assistance by testifying against a co-defendant,
(2) erred by determining that Zuanetti’s assistance was not substantial because the
co-defendant was acquitted, and (3) erred by failing to hold an evidentiary
hearing.1 After review, 2 we affirm.
The district court did not misapply Rule 35(b) or otherwise violate the law in
denying the Government’s motion to reduce Zuanetti’s sentence. Zuanetti’s plea
agreement granted the Government the authority to determine whether Zuanetti
provided substantial assistance so as to merit making a Rule 35(b) motion. It did
not give the Government the discretion to decide whether to grant relief under
1
We do not consider Zuanetti’s argument that the district court should have held an
evidentiary hearing on the issue of her assistance, because, unlike the parties in United States v.
Yesil, 991 F.2d 1527 (11th Cir. 1992), neither Zuanetti nor the Government requested an
evidentiary hearing before the district court. See Sunseri v. Macro Cellular Partners, 412 F.3d
1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts will turn a deaf ear to protests that an evidentiary hearing
should have been convened but was not, where the protestor did not seasonably request such a
hearing in lower court.” (quotation marks and alteration omitted)).
2
We review a district court’s ruling on a Rule 35(b) motion as an “otherwise final
sentence” under 18 U.S.C. § 3742, which limits review to certain claims. United States v.
Manella, 86 F.3d 201, 202–03 (11th Cir. 1996). “A district court’s decision to grant or deny a
Rule 35(b) motion is a discretionary one from which an appeal generally will not lie under
§ 3742.” Id. at 203. A defendant may appeal the district court’s denial of a Rule 35(b) motion,
however, if the defendant’s claim is that the district court misapplied Rule 35(b) and therefore
imposed a sentence in violation of law. See id. In such a case, we review de novo the district
court’s application of Rule 35(b). Id.
2
Case: 15-14042 Date Filed: 08/02/2016 Page: 3 of 3
Rule 35(b), which discretion rests solely with the district court. See Murphy v.
United States, 634 F.3d 1303, 1313 (11th Cir. 2011); Manella, 86 F.3d at 204 n.6.
Furthermore, the district court correctly applied Rule 35(b) by considering
for itself whether Zuanetti had rendered substantial assistance meriting a reduction
in her sentence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)(3) (“In evaluating whether the
defendant has provided substantial assistance, the court may consider the
defendant’s presentence assistance.” (emphasis supplied)). We may not review the
district court’s conclusion on the merits of that question. See Manella, 86 F.3d at
203 (noting that a challenge to “the merits of the district court’s Rule 35(b)
determination” is unreviewable).
AFFIRMED.
3