Okwudiri Arishi appeals the district court’s ruling on the government’s Fed. R.Crim.P. 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide an evidentiary hearing. The government argues that we lack jurisdiction, since Arishi’s appeal does not fall within 18 U.S.C. § 3742 .

FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

On February 26, 1991, Arishi was convicted on five counts related to heroin trafficking. On June 6, 1991, Arishi was sentenced to a prison term of 189 months. We affirmed the district court’s judgment in an unpublished opinion. United States v. Arishi, 988 F.2d 122 (9th Cir.1993).

On August 10,1993, the government filed a Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of Arishi’s sentence, based on his substantial assistance to the government in another criminal prosecution. The government recommended a one-level reduction, which would reduce Ari-shi’s sentence by twenty months. Arishi requested a hearing on the Rule 35(b) motion. The district court denied his request. After hearing telephonic arguments from the attorneys, the district court reduced Arishi’s sentence by thirty months instead of the twenty months requested by the government.

DISCUSSION

The issue before us is whether Arishi’s appeal is an effort to appeal from a sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , or an attempt to appeal from an otherwise final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . The right to appeal is statutory, not constitutional. A party “must come within the terms of [an] applicable statute” in order to appeal. Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 656 , 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2038 , 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977).

Rule 35(b) provides for reduction of sentences for substantial assistance to the government under limited circumstances:

Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) (1994) (quoted in pertinent part). Arishi claims that the reduction does not reflect the extent of his cooperation. He argues that an evidentiary hearing would have revealed the full scope of his cooperation.

I. Appeal of a Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742

The government argues that Arishi’s appeal does not fall within 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , which restricts his right to appeal from an “otherwise final sentence” to four distinct criteria:

18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a) (1993 & Supp.1995).

The government correctly argues that Ari-shi’s claims do not fall within the criteria provided in section 3742. Arishi concedes that we have not previously decided this issue:

Appellant’s Opening Brief at 9.

Arishi cites United States v. Yesil, 991 F.2d 1527 (11th Cir.1992), for the proposition that the denial of a hearing on a Rule 35(b) motion is appealable. In Yesil , the Eleventh Circuit remanded three defendants’ sentences for evidentiary hearings on their substantial assistance. Yesil does not support Arishi’s claims, as the Yesil court specifically stated that the defendants could not appeal the denial of Rule 35(b) motions or their sentences. Yesil involved the enforcement of plea agreements, not the appeal of the denial of a Rule 35(b) motion. As the government notes in Arishi’s case, no plea agreement existed; the government was not obligated to file a Rule 35(b) motion.

By not construing section 3742 as permitting an appeal of the denial of Rule 35(b) motions or the degree of reduction of sentence, the symmetry between Rule 35(b) motions and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motions is maintained. Section 5K1.1 empowers the government to file a substantial assistance motion, but does not impose a duty to do so. Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 , 112 S.Ct. 1840 , 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992). The government’s failure to file a section 5K1.1 motion is not reviewable unless the defendant makes a “substantial threshold showing” that the government’s refusal is based upon unconstitutional motives. Id. “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.” Id.; see also United States v. Mkhsian, 5 F.3d 1306, 1314 (9th Cir.1993). Although Wade involved a defendant’s challenge to the government’s failure to move for downward departure pursuant to section 5K1.1, its reasoning should be applicable to evidentiary hearings in conjunction with Rule 35(b) post-conviction sentence reductions. See United States v. Hardesty, 958 F.2d 910 , 911 n. 1 (9th Cir.1992) (Rule 35 amended to conform to the Sentencing Guidelines).

II. Jurisdiction Under Section 1291

The First Circuit has held that it has jurisdiction to review a district court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 35(b) motion. In United States v. McAndrews, 12 F.3d 273 (1st Cir.1993), the court recognized the limitations of a court of appeals to review the degree of a sentencing court’s departure:

Id. at 276 . Then, however, the court distinguished a Rule 35(b) appeal from a sentence appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 :

United States v. McAndrews, 12 F.3d 273, 277 (1st Cir.1993) (emphasis added) (footnote & citation omitted).

The only other circuit to resolve the issue of appealability of an order on a Rule 35(b) motion, the Eleventh Circuit, has declined to follow the First Circuit:

United States v. Chavarria-Herrara, 15 F.3d 1033, 1035-36 (11th Cir.1994). In a footnote to this passage, the Eleventh Circuit explains the symmetry conflict:

Id. at 1036 n. 3. The Chavarria-Herrara court also considered the legislative intent behind the symmetry:

Id. at 1035.

CONCLUSION

We agree with the Eleventh Circuit that the exclusive avenue of appeal of rulings on Rule 35(b) motions is 18 U.S.C. § 3742 . For the reasons discussed above, Arishi’s claims do not fall within the appealable criteria. Thus, lacking jurisdiction, we dismiss Arishi’s appeal.

. Section 1291 provides, in pertinent part: The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1993). . Appeals by the government are permissible under the same criteria as those provided for a defendant’s appeal: The government may file a notice of appeal in the district court for review of an otherwise final sentence if the sentence— (1) was imposed in violation of law; (2) was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines; (3) is less than the sentence specified in the applicable guideline range to the extent that the sentence includes a lesser fine or term of imprisonment, probation, or supervised release than the minimum established in the guideline range, or includes a less limiting condition of probation or supervised release under section 3563(b)(6) or (b)(ll) than the minimum established in the guideline range; or (4)was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable. 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (b) (1993 & Supp.1995).