USA v. Guerrera-Munez et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) Criminal Action No. 22-00097-KD-B
)
JARSON GUERRERA-MUNEZ, )
Defendant. )
ORDER
This action is before the Court on the motion to compel the United States to file a Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion, (Doc. 143, SEALED), filed by Defendant Jarson
Guerrera-Munez (“Defendant”). Upon consideration, and for the reasons below, the motion is
DENIED.
Generally, a court may not review the United States’ refusal to file a substantial-assistance
motion unless the defendant shows that the United States was acting with an “unconstitutional
motive,” such as “race or religion.” Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185–86 (1992). Such a
showing must include “substantial” allegations of unconstitutional motive. Id.; United States v.
Forney, 9 F.3d 1492, 1501 (11th Cir. 1993).
An exception to this rule applies when the United States promises to file a substantial-
assistance motion in its plea agreement with the defendant. United States v. Jefferies, 908 F.2d
1520, 1527 (11th Cir. 1990). When a plea agreement has not been followed by the United States,
the court can order specific performance of the agreement. Id. That is because prosecutors must
fulfill promises that induce the defendant to agree to a plea. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S.
257, 262 (1971).
Case 1:22-cr-00097-KD-B Doc# 144 Filed 05/06/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>

2
But when the United States only agrees “to consider” filing a substantial-assistance motion,
the United States does not breach its agreement when it decides not to file the motion. United
States v. Forney, 9 F.3d 1492, 1499 (11th Cir. 1993). In such a case, judicial review is only
appropriate “when there is an allegation and a substantial showing that the prosecution refused to
file a substantial assistance motion because of a constitutionally impermissible motivation, such
as race or religion.” Id. at 1502.
Here, Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine on board a vessel.
(Docs. 71, 72). Defendant was sentenced to 72 months’ imprisonment. (Doc. 108). The plea
agreement states that the United States agrees to file a Rule 35(b) motion if Defendant provides
substantial assistance, “a decision specifically reserved by the United States in the exercise of its
sole discretion.” (Doc. 71 at 8). Thus, the United States has discretion to file a Rule 35(b) motion.
Moreover, Defendant has not made any allegations that the United States has refused to file a
substantial-assistance motion because of an unconstitutional motive. Therefore, Defendant’s
motion to compel the United States to file a substantial-assistance motion is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of May 2025.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:22-cr-00097-KD-B Doc# 144 Filed 05/06/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>