United States v. Austin
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7808
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Austin was charged in 2005 with conspiracy-related drug offense, firearm offense, and felon in possession; information alleged a prior felony drug conviction.
- Austin entered a written plea agreeing to plead guilty to §841(a)(1) and §924(c)(1)(A)(i) with dismissal of §922(g)(1) and information strike; the plea also specified a seventeen-year sentence and was to be binding if accepted by the court.
- On January 23, 2007, the district court sentenced Austin to the seventeen-year term per the plea agreement.
- On January 27, 2009, Austin moved under §3582(c)(2) to reduce the sentence; the district court granted a reduction to fifteen years, based on a lower sentencing range.
- The government appealed; the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the district court lacked jurisdiction under §3582(c)(2) because the sentence was based on a binding (C) agreement rather than a subsequently lowered Guidelines range.
- Freeman v. United States, decided during the pendency, held that a sentence imposed under a (C) agreement can be eligible for §3582(c)(2) relief only under narrow exceptions, which are central to this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sentence under a (C) agreement falls under §3582(c)(2) relief. | Austin argues (C) agreement-based sentence should be eligible under §3582(c)(2). | Government contends the sentence is not eligible because it is based on the agreement, not a lowered range. | Not eligible; district court lacked jurisdiction. |
| Whether Austin's plea was a (C) agreement or (B) agreement. | Austin contends it was a (C) agreement. | Government contends it was effectively a (B) agreement due to recommendation language. | The agreement was a (C) agreement. |
| If a (C) agreement is involved, must a Guidelines range be evident in the agreement to qualify for §3582(c)(2)? | Austin argues no explicit range is needed if the range is used to set the term. | Government argues absence of range defeats eligibility. | No; the term was not shown to be based on a Guidelines range. |
| Did the district court have authority to modify the sentence in light of Freeman and Sotomayor’s concurrence? | Austin relies on Sotomayor’s concurrence as controlling. | Government argues Freeman limits apply differently here. | District court lacked jurisdiction; reversal and reinstatement of 17-year term. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (U.S. 2011) (concurrence controls on whether (C) sentences are eligible for §3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2009) (jurisdiction to resentence under §3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Colson, 573 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing §3582(c)(2) decisions)
- Rivera-Martinez v. United States, 665 F.3d 344 (1st Cir. 2011) (guidance on whether plea agreements provide a Guidelines range for §3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Brown, 653 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2011) (eligibility under §3582(c)(2) when plea terms use Guidelines range)