United States v. Quinones

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 20, 2011
No. 11-10087 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cr-80063-KAM-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUAN RAMON QUINONES,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 20, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Ramon Quinones appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion
to compel the Government to file a substantial assistance motion pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). He asserts he is entitled to relief
because this Court’s precedent regarding discretionary Rule 35(b) motions does
not limit unconstitutional motives to race and religion, and his invocation of his
Sixth Amendment rights in support of his motion to compel met the threshold
standard for court review.
Federal prosecutors are given vast discretion whether to file a substantial
assistance motion, and a prosecutor’s decision is subject to review only where the
defendant can make a threshold “substantial showing” before the district court that
the decision not to file the motion was motivated by an unconstitutional concern,
e.g., the defendant’s race or religion. United States v. McNeese, 547 F.3d 1307,
1308 (11th Cir. 2008). “We have held that arguments that the government had
motivations beyond the defendant’s provision of substantial assistance do not
satisfy the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional-motive standard for review.” Id.; see
also United States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492, 1502-03 n.5 (11th Cir. 1998) (generally
a district court need not consider claim the government acted in “bad faith” in
refusing to file substantial assistance motion). We have not defined the
parameters of constitutional motives subject to this inquiry, but have expressed a
2
view that review is limited to matters involving “race, religion or other arbitrary
classification.” Forney, 9 F.3d at 1501 n.4.
The district court did not err in finding Quinones failed to make a
substantial showing the Government refused to file a Rule 35(b) motion based
upon an unconstitutional motive. In support of his motion to compel, Quinones
offered nothing beyond a blanket—and counter-intuitive—claim the Government
was retaliating against him because he opted to waive his right to be represented
by counsel when testifying for the Government in the case against Juan Carlos
Cruz. It simply does not follow that the Government would somehow negatively
view Quinones’s decision not to have counsel in furtherance of his testimony in
the Cruz case, as Quinones’s actions in this regard likely helped the Government.
We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Quinones was simply
manufacturing a constitutional “hook” to avoid the application of this Court’s
precedent regarding review of substantial assistance disputes. Thus, we affirm the
district court’s denial of Quinones’s motion to compel under Rule 35(b).
AFFIRMED.
3