Freeman v. United States
131 S. Ct. 2685
| SCOTUS | 2011Background
- The Sentencing Reform Act authorized retroactive amendments to the Guidelines and § 3582(c)(2) permits reductions when the defendant was sentenced based on a lowered range.
- Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreements bind the court to a specific sentence or range after acceptance, while the court retains discretion to ensure a just sentence within the framework.
- William Freeman pleaded guilty under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement agreeing a 106‑month sentence, with guidance that his sentence would be determined by the Guidelines.
- A retroactive Amendment 706 lowered Freeman’s applicable Guidelines range from 46–57 to 37–46 months, still with a 60‑month consecutive minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
- The district court imposed Freeman’s 106‑month sentence based on the agreement and the then‑existing Guidelines, before the retroactive amendment.
- The Sixth Circuit upheld a categorical bar to § 3582(c)(2) relief for sentences under 11(c)(1)(C) agreements, which the Supreme Court later reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) allows relief for sentences imposed under 11(c)(1)(C) agreements. | Freeman argues relief is available because the sentence was based on Guidelines that were later lowered. | The Government contends the sentence is based on the agreement, not the Guidelines, precluding relief. | Relief is available when the sentence is based on a subsequently lowered Guidelines range. |
| Whether a sentence imposed under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement can be 'based on' the Guidelines for § 3582(c)(2) purposes. | The agreement can be seen as the basis if it uses a Guidelines range to establish the term. | The term is fixed by the agreement and not by the Guidelines calculation. | A sentence can be based on the Guidelines if the agreement uses or incorporates the Guidelines range to set the term. |
| Role of the court versus the agreement in determining eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) relief. | The court should recognize the Guidelines framework remains relevant when the range is lowered. | Relief should reflect only the agreement's terms, not the Guidelines once the agreement is accepted. | The court may consider the amended Guidelines range when the sentence is based on it, even if an agreement was reached. |
| Is the Government’s fear of a windfall justified in applying § 3582(c)(2) to (C) agreements? | Allowing relief prevents unwarranted disparities. | Relief could undermine the Government’s bargain and create windfalls. | Discretionary review ensures no windfall; relief may be denied if warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U. S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (Guidelines as starting point in sentencing; review for reasonableness)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U. S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (Crack/cocaine sentencing policy and § 3553(a) considerations)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U. S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (Framework for § 3582(c)(2) proceedings and abuse review)
- Rivera-Martinez v. United States, 607 F.3d 283 (1st Cir. 2010) (Approaches to 'based on' analysis for § 3582(c)(2) in (C) agreements)
- Franklin v. United States, 600 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2010) (Guidelines-based adjustment under § 3582(c)(2) when range used)
- Dissent/Concurrence contexts cited: United States v. Peveler, 359 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2004) (narrow exceptions to § 3582(c)(2) relief for misjudgments or miscarriages of justice)