Blog
How to Get the Government to File a Rule 35 Motion
The Mechanism You Cannot Operate
The only person who can shorten your federal sentence under Rule 35(b) is the person who prosecuted you. That is not an oversight in the rule. The motion belongs to the government, filed at its discretion, on its timeline, for its reasons. A defendant who has cooperated, who has testified, who has worn a wire into rooms where cooperation could cost a life, has no procedural right to compel the filing. The court cannot order it. Defense counsel cannot submit it. The question, then, is not whether you deserve a Rule 35 motion. The question is how to construct a set of circumstances in which the government perceives the motion as serving its own interests.
This is where most of the available guidance on the subject falls short. The standard advice instructs you to cooperate, to remain truthful, to furnish useful information. None of that is wrong. But it treats cooperation as a transaction between equals, and the structure of Rule 35 ensures that it is not. The government holds the instrument. The defendant provides the material. Whether the material is sufficient, whether the instrument is deployed, whether the reduction is meaningful or nominal: those determinations rest with the prosecutor, reviewed by the court only at the margins. The Supreme Court established in Wade v. United States that judicial review of a prosecutor’s refusal to file is confined to cases involving unconstitutional motive or bad faith. The standard has not loosened in the decades since.
The Government’s Sole Discretion
The architecture of Rule 35(b) places the government in a position that resembles a landlord more than a counterparty. The defendant occupies the arrangement. The government controls it. Under the rule, upon the government’s motion made within one year of sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant, after sentencing, provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person. After one year, the exceptions narrow: the information must have been unknown to the defendant until after the first year, or must not have become useful to the government within that window, or its usefulness could not reasonably have been anticipated.
Courts have held, with a consistency that approaches unanimity, that the government is under no obligation to file regardless of how useful the cooperation was. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that where a plea agreement states the government will file only if it determines, in its sole discretion, that cooperation qualifies, the government does not breach the agreement by declining. The district court, in such cases, lacks jurisdiction even to review the claim.
Two narrow exceptions exist in the case law. The first: the government obligated itself, in the language of the plea agreement, to file the motion. The word “shall” matters here in a way it seldom matters elsewhere. The second is that the refusal was grounded in an unconstitutional motive: race, religion, or a basis not rationally related to a legitimate government end. The Court in Wade confirmed both exceptions and, in the same opinion, made clear how formidable the threshold remains. A defendant who outlines the extent of his cooperation does not reach it. Generalized allegations of improper motive do not reach it. What reaches it is a showing substantial enough to warrant discovery, and the circuits have been parsimonious in finding that showing met.
The practical consequence is this: by the time you are contesting whether the government should have filed, you have already lost the more consequential argument, which occurred months or years earlier, about whether the cooperation was structured to render the filing a foregone conclusion. The motion is not won at the courthouse. It is won, or lost, in the proffer room, in the cooperation agreement, and in the sustained relationship between defense counsel and the assigned AUSA.
Most defendants learn the contours of Rule 35 after sentencing. The education arrives too late to change the architecture of what came before.
What the Plea Agreement Controls
The language of the cooperation agreement is, in practice, the only enforceable constraint on the government’s discretion. A plea agreement that states the government “will file” a Rule 35(b) motion upon a determination of substantial assistance creates an obligation that courts will enforce. A plea agreement that states the government “may file” at its “sole and exclusive discretion” creates something closer to a hope.
In the Third Circuit, United States v. Isaac held that the government’s obligation to act in good faith is implicit in any agreement to file a departure motion if the government determines cooperation was substantial. The Ninth Circuit, in United States v. Lezine, found that where the agreement provided the government “shall” move for departure assuming full and truthful cooperation, the defendant’s due process rights required the court to determine whether the precondition had been satisfied. These holdings carve space. But the space is carved within a fortress, and most plea agreements are drafted by the government itself.
In 2019, before the wave of revised cooperation templates that followed several publicized breach-of-agreement disputes, the standard language in most districts left the filing decision to unreviewable prosecutorial discretion. The templates have improved in some jurisdictions. In others, they have not changed at all.
What this means in practice: the cooperation agreement is the only document in the case that defense counsel drafts alongside the government. It is also the document that determines, often years later, whether the client possesses any recourse at all. We approach the drafting of that agreement as if it were the sentencing memorandum composed in advance. The difference between “will” and “may” in paragraph nine of a cooperation agreement has, in cases we have handled, amounted to the difference between a motion filed and silence.
Substantial Assistance Is Not Effort
The word “substantial” does the work in Rule 35(b) that the defendant cannot do for himself. It is, by the government’s account (and if we are being precise about it, a characterization the courts have declined to override), a qualitative judgment. The courts evaluate it against five factors drawn from §5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, applied in the post-sentencing context: the significance and usefulness of the assistance, its truthfulness and completeness, the nature and extent of cooperation, the risk borne by the defendant and the defendant’s family, and the timeliness of the information. Substantial weight, per the Guidelines commentary, is given to the government’s own evaluation.
The gap between what defendants believe constitutes substantial assistance and what prosecutors recognize as such is the source of most frustration in this area of practice. A defendant who provides the name of a supplier the government already identified has provided information. He has not provided substantial assistance. A defendant who testifies at trial against a codefendant, who accepts cross-examination and the label that follows, has provided cooperation the government takes seriously. You sign the cooperation agreement and then you discover what cooperation means.
The risk factor is underappreciated. Prosecutors assign weight to cooperation that exposed the defendant to real danger. A controlled purchase in a fentanyl case. Testimony against a defendant with a documented pattern of witness intimidation. The information itself might be identical in both scenarios, but the cooperation that carried personal risk registers differently in the government’s calculus. I am less certain about whether this factor is applied uniformly across districts, though the pattern we observe suggests it carries more weight in districts with heavier drug dockets.
And there is a related problem that surfaces less in the literature but appears with regularity in practice. A defendant cooperates over a period of months. The information is truthful, complete, reliable. But the government’s investigation shifts direction, or the target cooperates independently, or the case is reassigned to a new AUSA who inherits a file but not the relationship. The cooperation was real. The result was null. Rule 35(b), which conditions relief on assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person, provides no mechanism for crediting cooperation that, through no fault of the defendant, produced no prosecution. Whether this gap in the rule represents an intentional design or an unconsidered consequence is a question the courts have not addressed.
Timing and Procedural Requirements
The default window for a Rule 35(b) motion is one year from sentencing. The government must file within that period if the defendant’s post-sentencing cooperation is to be recognized. Three exceptions extend the deadline: the information was unknown to the defendant until after the year elapsed; the information was provided within the year but did not become useful to the government until later; or the usefulness of the information could not have been anticipated by the defendant within the year, and the defendant provided it promptly once its significance became apparent.
The Sentencing Commission’s data indicates the average elapsed time between original sentencing and a Rule 35(b) reduction is something like two years, though the Commission’s figures are not current. The one-year deadline creates pressure that operates in both directions.
The steps that preserve the defendant’s position are procedural but consequential:
- Confirm in writing that cooperation has been provided and that the one-year clock is running.
- Ensure defense counsel communicates with the assigned prosecutor at regular intervals regarding the status of the investigation.
- If cooperation is ongoing, document each substantive proffer or evidentiary contribution with dates.
The defendants who lose the timing argument are, in our experience, the ones whose counsel stopped communicating with the government after sentencing. The file goes quiet, the deadline passes, and the motion was never considered, which is a different outcome than considered and refused.
The Role of Defense Counsel Before and After Sentencing
There is a tendency to treat Rule 35(b) as a post-sentencing remedy, which it is, while ignoring that the conditions for its success are established before the sentence is imposed. The cooperation agreement is drafted pre-sentencing. The relationship with the AUSA is constructed during the plea negotiation. The proffer sessions, where the defendant’s credibility and the scope of his knowledge are evaluated, occur before the court pronounces sentence.
After sentencing, the defense attorney’s role becomes one of maintenance and documentation. This is not the phase in which persuasion occurs. It is the phase in which neglect carries the highest cost. A defendant serving a sentence in a federal facility has limited ability to contact the prosecutor’s office. Communication passes through counsel. If counsel is not managing that communication, the cooperation can dissipate without anyone marking the date it ended.
We structure our post-sentencing engagement differently than the standard practice. Rather than waiting for the government to initiate, we provide written updates to the prosecutor’s office at intervals, summarizing the cooperation completed and the cooperation that remains available. The updates serve two purposes. They remind the government that the defendant’s cooperation exists and is ongoing. They create a documentary record that, if the government later declines to file, establishes the scope of what was provided. That record has value in a proceeding where value is otherwise difficult to demonstrate.
The federal system does not have parole. Once the sentence is pronounced, the avenues for reduction narrow to a small set of procedural instruments that are difficult to reach and more difficult to operate. Rule 35(b) is among the most consequential of those instruments because it permits a court to reduce a sentence below a statutory mandatory minimum. It is also among the most frustrating, because the defendant who has earned the reduction cannot obtain it alone.
The work of persuading the government to file begins long before the motion is contemplated. It begins with the structure of the cooperation agreement, with the credibility established in the first proffer, with the sustained attention of defense counsel in the months after sentencing when the case file is closed for most purposes but the client’s sentence remains open. A consultation with this office is where that structure begins, and it assumes nothing about the outcome.