Carlos Enrique Lehder-Rivas, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for an evidentiary hearing on his motion, filed pursuant to Fed. R. Cri. P. 35(b)(2), to compel the Government to perform its obligations under a cooperation agreement he entered into with the office of the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida (the “USAO”). According to Lehder-Rivas, the agreement provided that if he substantially assisted the USAO’s investigation, the USAO would file a Rule 35 motion to reduce his sentence. He represents that he gave the United States Attorney’s Office in Houston, Texas, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Joint Drug Intelligence Group assistance on a case, and they told him that they would recommend to the USAO that it file a Rule 35 motion on his behalf. The recommendation was forthcoming, he says; nonetheless, the USAO refuses to honor the agreement and file such a motion. He contends that an unconstitutional reason motivated the USAO’s decision.

*325 Lehder-Rivas asked the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on his motion to compel. The court considered an evidentiary hearing unnecessary and therefore declined to hold one. The court then denied his motion to compel, stating, in relevant part, that his claim that the USAO’s refusal to file a Rule 35 motion was based on an unconstitutional motive failed because he neither alleged, nor proffered evidence, that the USAO’s refusal was based on his race. 1

Rule 35 allows the government to move the district court to reduce a defendant’s sentence when the defendant provides substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 35(b). The Supreme Court has stated in the U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 context, which is akin to Rule 35, that the government has the power, but not the duty, to file a motion to reduce a defendant’s sentence for providing substantial assistance. Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 1843, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992).

[Fjederal district courts have authority to review a prosecutor’s refusal to file a substantial-assistance motion and to grant a remedy if they find that the refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive. Thus, a defendant would be entitled to relief if a prosecutor refused to file a substantial-assistance motion, say, because of the defendant’s race or religion.... [A] claim that a defendant merely provided substantial assistance will not entitle a defendant to a remedy or even to discovery or an evidentiary hearing. Nor would additional but generalized allegations of improper motive.

ld at 185-186, 112 S.Ct. at 1843-1844. We have said that a Rule 35 movant is only entitled to an evidentiary hearing when “he offers facts which, if proven, would establish ... a gross abuse of discretion in failing to reduce the sentence.” United States v. Winfield, 960 F.2d 970, 972 (11th Cir. 1992).

In the case at hand, the court was precluded from holding an evidentiary hearing because Lehder-Rivas failed to demonstrate — by allegation or proffer of evidence — that the USAO’s decision not to file a Rule 35 motion was based on an unconstitutional motive.

AFFIRMED.