Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing defendant’s complaint under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 USC section 702) seeking to have Dist. Ct. set aside prosecutor’s decision not to file second motion under Rule 35(b) to reduce defendant’s 110-month sentence on mail and wire fraud convictions based on defendant’s substantial assistance to prosecution that was given subsequent to defendant receiving initial reduction in sentence for giving substantial assistance to prosecution. While Dist. Ct. improperly believed that prosecutor’s refusal to file Rule 35(b) motion was discretionary act that was not subject to appellate review, and that defendant’s proper remedy was filing section 2255 habeas petition, Ct. of Appeals found that filing complaint under APA was not proper way to seek order compelling prosecutor to file Rule 35(b) motion, and that defendant could raise issue by filing ordinary motion in original criminal case. Ct. further noted, though, that under Wade, 504 U.S. 181, permissible grounds for review of discretionary decision by prosecutor were limited to matters of race discrimination or other constitutional transgressions, and defendant’s argument that she was entitled to second reduction because of her substantial assistance to prosecution would be insufficient to prevail under Wade.