United States v. Doe, No. 14-10147 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant plead guilty to soliciting the murders of two of his associates. The district court granted the government's motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) to reduce defendant's sentence because he provided substantial post-sentencing assistance to the government. The district court did not rule explicitly on which version of the facts - the admissions in Doe’s plea agreement or the various accounts Doe later provided to the government - was accurate when it granted the government’s Rule 35(b) motion. Doe did not object to the court’s evaluation of the evidence during the Rule 35(b) hearing. On appeal, defendant argues that the district court committed plain error by failing to explicitly determine the true facts under Rule 32(i)(3). The court concluded that there was no error, let alone plain error, because Rule 35 does not incorporate Rule 32’s requirement that the court make findings on disputed or controverted matters. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel held that in granting a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) for a sentence reduction on the basis of substantial post-sentencing assistance to the government, the district court did not err by failing to rule on controverted factual issues in accord with Rule 32(i)(3). The panel held that Rule 35 does not incorporate Rule 32’s requirement that the court make findings on disputed or controverted matters. Rule 32 pertains to sentencing, and a Rule 35(b) proceeding is not the equivalent of a de novo sentencing.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 21, 2016.
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.