US GOVERNMENT ASSERTS THAT THE COURT DID NOT ERR WHEN IT ALLOWED WITHDRAWAL OF RULE 35 MOTION

US GOVERNMENT ASSERTS THAT THE COURT DID NOT ERR WHEN IT ALLOWED WITHDRAWAL OF RULE 35 MOTION

User Rating: 3 / 5

Star ActiveStar ActiveStar ActiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
 

The brief of the United States, in Scott Rothstein's Eleventh Circuit appeal of the District Court's order allowing the US Attorney to withdraw its pending Rule 35 motion to reduce his 50-year sentence only contained one issue:

"Whether the District Court Properly granted the Government's request to Withdraw its previously filed Motion for Reduction of Sentence, after the Court correctly concluded that the  Government had the Discretion under the Plea Agreement to withdraw the Motion."

While the Plea Agreement does not specifically empower the Government to withdraw their Rule 35 motion to reduce Rothstein's sentence, it does give it sole discretion regarding whether or not to reduce his sentence. Additionally, case law is well settled regarding that discretion, and the courts have uniformly agreed that, under basic contract law, the Government is within its discretion, when deciding whether to reduce an inmate's sentence.

The chances that Scott Rothstein will be successful in his appeal are small, due to the above well-settled questions of law. Whether the fact that Rothstein forged the signatures of Florida and Federal judges, in crafting bogus court orders and judgments will influence the appellate court cannot be quantified, but as it was an aggravating factor in his criminal trial, it certainly marked him as a public enemy. We will advise our readers further when a decision is handed down.

Chronicles of Monte Friesner - Financial Crime Analyst  

Contributed by Kenneth Rijock - Financial Crime Consultant