In the 1991 case of Harold Ray Wade v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a defendant's assistance to authorities after sentencing could be considered as grounds for reducing his sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). Wade had been convicted and sentenced for drug trafficking offenses. After sentencing, he provided substantial assistance to federal authorities in prosecuting other individuals involved in illegal drug activities. He then filed a motion requesting that his sentence be reduced based on this post-sentencing cooperation with law enforcement agencies. The Supreme Court held that such post-sentencing cooperation could not form the basis for a reduction in sentence under Rule 35(b), which only allows reductions based on pre-sentence assistance given by defendants. The court reasoned that allowing reductions based on post-sentence cooperation would create an incentive for defendants to withhold their full cooperation until after they have been sentenced, undermining the effectiveness of investigations and prosecutions.

In the dissenting opinion for Harold Ray Wade v. United States, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with Congress' intent when it enacted 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). He believed that this statute allowed a sentencing judge to reduce a defendant's sentence below the statutory minimum if they provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person who has committed an offense. However, he disagreed with the majority’s view that such reduction could only be made upon government motion and not at discretion of court itself. He pointed out that there is nothing in legislative history suggesting Congress intended to give prosecutors sole authority over these reductions; rather, it seemed more likely they wanted courts to have final say on matter after considering all relevant factors including prosecutor’s recommendation and nature of defendant’s cooperation.