United States v. Astrit Bekteshi
683 F. App'x 270
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Astrit Bekteshi, a federal inmate, received a 135-month sentence after pleading guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, or marijuana.
- He sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782, which lowered base offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c).
- Bekteshi argued, citing Freeman, that his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea should not bar § 3582(c)(2) relief because the plea was tied to the Guidelines range.
- The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion, finding his 11(c)(1)(C) sentence was not based on a Guidelines sentencing range.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the plea agreement or the sentencing record tied the imposed term to a particular Guidelines range, which would make Amendment 782 applicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant sentenced under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) is eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief when Amendment 782 lowers the Guidelines range | Bekteshi: Freeman permits relief if the plea or sentence was based on a Guidelines range | Government: An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement that does not employ a particular Guidelines range bars § 3582(c)(2) relief | The plea did not use or reference a particular Guidelines range; § 3582(c)(2) relief unavailable |
| Whether the plea agreement here explicitly or implicitly tied the term to a Guidelines range | Bekteshi: The sentence should be viewed as tied to Guidelines for reduction purposes | Government: The agreement contained no explicit guideline-range basis and court did not rely on Guideline calculations | Court found no explicit or implicit reliance on a Guidelines range; no reduction |
| Whether the district court needed to make specific factual findings or legal conclusions when denying § 3582(c)(2) relief | Bekteshi: Court should have made findings addressing eligibility and §1B1.10(b)(2)(B) considerations | Government: No such detailed findings required when ineligible as a matter of law | No requirement to make extra findings; denial not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the court must consider reductions below amended range under U.S.S.G. §1B1.10(b)(2)(B) | Bekteshi: Court should consider eligibility for below-range reductions | Government: Such consideration applies only if the sentence is based on the Guidelines | Court need not consider §1B1.10(b)(2)(B) because sentence was not Guidelines-based |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (explains when 11(c)(1)(C) sentences may be eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief if tied to a Guidelines range)
- United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807 (5th Cir. 2016) (applies Freeman to deny § 3582(c)(2) relief where plea did not employ a Guidelines range)
- United States v. Williams, 609 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2010) (addresses consideration of policy statement §1B1.10 when sentence is Guidelines-based)
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (no requirement for detailed findings when denying § 3582(c)(2) motion)