United States v. Rublee, No. 11-1065 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 132 months in prison. One year later, the court granted the Government's Rule 35(b) motion to reduce the sentence below the mandatory minimum to reflect defendant's substantial assistance in providing information that led to the conviction of two other persons. Defendant appealed the reduced 98-month sentence, arguing that the district court improperly considered factors unrelated to the value of his assistance in declining to grant a further reduction. The court held that because the district court had authority to limit the Rule 35(b) reduction to 98 months, instead of 84 months, based on factors unrelated to the substantial assistance defendant provided, his sentence was not imposed in violation of law even if based on an unrelated factor. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3742(a) to consider the broader abuse-of-discretion issue he also sought to raise. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. District court did not exercise its Rule 35(b) discretion in violation of law, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(a)(1), and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; if the court has jurisdiction over a sentencing appeal under Sec. 3742(a) or Sec. 3472(b), the court can review the extent of the Rule 35(b) reduction for abuse of discretion; but if the issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in granting or denying a Rule 35(b) motion, or in determining the extent of the sentence reduction, only the government may appeal under Sec. 3742(b)(3); if the defendant appeals, he must establish the sentence was imposed "in violation of law" to confer appellate jurisdiction under Sec. 3742(a)(1); because the district court had authority to limit the Rule 35(b) reduction based on factors unrelated to the substantial assistance defendant provided, his sentencing was not imposed in violation of law even if based on an unrelated factor.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.