Blog
How Long After Sentencing Can I Get a Rule 35 Reduction?
The answer is one year, with exceptions that are narrower than most defendants expect, and with a threshold condition that the defendant does not control.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 is two separate provisions sharing a number. Rule 35(a) addresses arithmetical and technical errors in a sentence. Rule 35(b) addresses sentence reductions based on cooperation with the government. The question in the title concerns Rule 35(b), and the rest of this article treats it accordingly. But the fourteen-day window under Rule 35(a) matters to enough readers that it warrants its own discussion, however brief.
The Fourteen-Day Window
Rule 35(a) permits the sentencing court to correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error. The window is fourteen days from sentencing, and “sentencing” under this Rule means the oral announcement, not the date the written judgment enters the docket. That distinction has cost defendants who assumed they had more time than they did. A miscalculation in the guidelines, a transposed digit in the offense level, an error in how criminal history points were tallied: these are the province of Rule 35(a). The mechanism does not permit arguments that the sentence was too severe, or that the court weighed the wrong factors, or that something new has come to light. The error must be the kind a calculator could have caught.
Fourteen days is not generous. Defense counsel who intend to file under Rule 35(a) must identify the error before the transcript is available in most districts. Clerks in the Eastern District tend to take longer than fourteen days to produce a final transcript, which means counsel is working from notes and memory. And the window is jurisdictional in a way that 35(b)’s deadline may no longer be, a distinction the Seventh Circuit addressed in late 2025.
Substantial Assistance and the One-Year Clock
Rule 35(b)(1) permits the court to reduce a sentence if, upon the government’s motion filed within one year of sentencing, the defendant provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person after sentencing. Every operative term in that sentence carries weight. The motion belongs to the government. The assistance must occur after sentencing. The filing must come within one year of the oral pronouncement.
“Substantial” is the word that does all the work and receives the least definition. The assistance cannot be trivial. Telling the government something it already knew, or providing information that leads nowhere, or cooperating in spirit without producing anything the government can use in a courtroom: none of this qualifies. The government must regard the assistance as substantial, and the court must agree. In practice, the government’s assessment controls the first gate, whether to file the motion at all, and the court’s assessment controls the second, whether and how much to reduce.
The Sentencing Commission’s analysis of Rule 35(b) reductions, while not current to this year, reveals patterns that have remained stable over time. Most defendants who receive a 35(b) reduction were convicted of drug trafficking offenses carrying mandatory minimum penalties. The reductions themselves tend to be smaller than those achieved through the pre-sentencing mechanism, Section 5K1.1 of the guidelines. Whether that gap reflects the government’s diminished negotiating position after sentencing or the court’s diminished willingness to revisit a finalized judgment is a question worth considering.
One point this firm addresses early in any cooperation discussion: a defendant who provides information both before and after sentencing can, in theory, receive both a 5K1.1 departure and a Rule 35(b) reduction. The combined effect, when it occurs, produces the largest overall sentence reduction available in the federal system. But each mechanism requires its own showing of substantial assistance, and the pre-sentencing cooperation cannot be re-credited to the post-sentencing motion. The two provisions have, as one court observed, distinct temporal boundaries. The cooperation must produce new value at each stage.
There is a practical reality beneath the rule’s text that the rule itself does not address. A defendant who has been sentenced and transferred to a facility has limited capacity to generate new cooperation. The information most defendants possess is the information they possessed at the time of their offense. If that information was offered before sentencing through a 5K1.1 motion, there may be nothing left to offer afterward. Rule 35(b) rewards the defendant whose cooperation bears fruit on a delayed timeline, not the defendant who wishes, after the fact, to cooperate more vigorously.
The question a defendant should consider before sentencing is not whether cooperation can occur later. It is what will remain to offer.
The Exceptions That Permit a Later Filing
Rule 35(b)(2) permits the government to file a motion more than one year after sentencing, but only under three enumerated circumstances. The information was not known to the defendant until a year or more after sentencing. Or the information was provided within the first year but did not become useful to the government until later. Or the usefulness of the information could not reasonably have been anticipated by the defendant until more than a year had passed, and the defendant provided it once its usefulness became apparent.
These exceptions are narrow, and courts have applied them accordingly. In the Fourth Circuit, a defendant who possessed relevant information within the one-year period but waited to provide it could not invoke the exception simply because the investigation itself did not conclude until later. The exception requires that the information, not the investigation, was unavailable or unrecognizable within the first year.
In 2002, the Rule was amended to broaden the exceptions from their original form. Before that amendment, a late motion was permitted only if the defendant learned the information after one year. The current language also covers situations where the information was known but its value was not. For defendants whose cooperation involves ongoing criminal enterprises, where the significance of a particular detail may not surface for years, this is a meaningful expansion.
What Changed in the Seventh Circuit
In United States v. Johnston, decided in October 2025, the Seventh Circuit held that the one-year filing deadline in Rule 35(b)(1) is not jurisdictional. The court applied the Supreme Court’s framework from Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, which holds that time limits appearing only in court-made rules are nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules. They can be waived or forfeited if not raised.
This displaced the circuit’s own 1997 decision in United States v. McDowell. The practical consequence: when the government files a Rule 35(b) motion after the one-year period and the defendant does not object, the court retains the power to act. Johnston himself had cooperated by recording a Sinaloa Cartel leader who had ordered a killing inside the facility (a fact that, if we are being precise, the cooperation itself helped prevent rather than merely document). The government sought a twenty-five percent reduction more than two years after sentencing. The court granted ten percent, citing Johnston’s pattern of frivolous postconviction filings as evidence that he had not accepted responsibility.
Whether other circuits will follow the same reasoning is a question I cannot answer with confidence from the current case law. The logic is grounded in Hamer, which applies everywhere. But circuit courts arrive at the same conclusion on different schedules, and for different reasons.
The Asymmetry of the Process
The defining feature of Rule 35(b) is one most defendants do not fully appreciate until after they have begun cooperating: the defendant cannot file the motion. Only the government can.
A defendant may cooperate in good faith, provide information that leads to arrests, testify at personal risk, and still receive no reduction if the government declines to act. The two exceptions to the government’s discretion are worth stating. If the government obligated itself in a plea agreement to file a Rule 35(b) motion and failed to do so, the court may treat this as a breach. If the refusal is based on an unconstitutional motive, the court may intervene. Neither exception arises with frequency.
You sign the cooperation agreement and you begin providing information. You do not know, at that point, whether what you provide will be considered substantial. You do not know whether the assistant United States attorney who negotiated the agreement will still be assigned to the case in six months, or twelve. You do not know whether the investigation your information supports will produce indictments or close without action. The information leaves your possession the moment you provide it, and what the government constructs from it is beyond your influence.
This is the structural tension at the center of cooperation. The government designed Rule 35(b) to incentivize defendants to provide information without guaranteeing a result, because a guarantee would compromise the government’s ability to assess the quality of that information on its own terms. The incentive functions because the possibility of reduction is real. But the mechanism by which it functions requires the defendant to relinquish control over the outcome.
We advise clients considering cooperation to negotiate the terms of the agreement before providing any information. The agreement should specify, where the United States Attorney’s Office will permit it, the circumstances under which the government will file a motion and the factors it will consider. Not every office agrees to such terms. Some treat the cooperation agreement as a statement of general intent rather than a contractual commitment. We prefer specificity in these agreements (and have observed, across enough cases to form a position though not enough to call it a study, that specificity at the front end correlates with fewer disputes at the back end, when the question of whether the government will file becomes the question of whether it must).
A defendant several months into a federal sentence receives a communication suggesting cooperation may be possible. The instinct is to provide everything at once, without conditions, because the sentence is running and any reduction feels urgent. That urgency is understandable. It is also, in most of the situations we have encountered, the wrong posture from which to negotiate. The government benefits from the defendant’s urgency. The defendant benefits from deliberation.
Timing and the Relationship Between 5K1.1 and Rule 35(b)
Before sentencing, the mechanism for crediting cooperation is Section 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. After sentencing, it is Rule 35(b). The two are identical in most respects: both require substantial assistance, both require a government motion, both permit the court to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum. The difference is timing.
The reductions achieved through 5K1.1 at the time of sentencing tend to be larger. The Sentencing Commission’s data shows a gap of roughly fifteen percentage points between the two mechanisms when measured against the original sentencing range. Prosecutors may be more generous when cooperation is fresh. Judges may have more flexibility at initial sentencing than when modifying a final judgment. The passage of time between the original sentence and the Rule 35(b) motion, which averages something like two years across districts, may diminish the urgency that cooperation once carried.
Three cases this year alone presented us with clients who had waited to cooperate, believing they could preserve the information as a bargaining tool for later. In each case, the delay reduced the value of what they had to offer. Information depreciates. Personnel change. Investigations conclude without the defendant’s contribution, and the contribution itself becomes a footnote rather than a chapter.
- Determine whether your information has value now, not in the abstract.
- Engage counsel before making any disclosure to the government.
- Negotiate the cooperation agreement’s terms before providing substance.
This does not mean Rule 35(b) lacks value. For the defendant whose cooperation could not have commenced until after sentencing, because the relevant information was not yet available or the relevant investigation had not yet begun, Rule 35(b) is the only mechanism that exists. The government recognized, when it designed this provision, that cooperation does not always conform to the schedule the sentencing calendar imposes.
The broader principle is one of control, or rather its absence. A defendant facing federal sentencing has limited power over the outcome once the plea is entered and the guidelines are calculated. Cooperation remains one of the few instruments available. Rule 35(b) extends the window in which that instrument can be employed. The prosecution controls the instrument.
A consultation is where the assessment of cooperation begins, and the initial call carries no obligation.