United States v. Brown
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16381
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Brown pled guilty on Jan 21, 2005 to maintaining a place for crack-cocaine operations under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement stating the sentence range of 180–240 months; district court sentenced Brown to 210 months on Jun 9, 2005; the plea agreement bound the court to the specified range unless accepted; Brown later moved for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on retroactive crack amendments (May 22, 2009); district court granted reduction to 180 months; Government appealed arguing § 3582(c)(2) does not apply to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea-based sentences; Freeman v. United States was granted certiorari to resolve this question; Fourth Circuit held in abeyance pending the Supreme Court decision; Supreme Court later decided the issue in Freeman and the court’s decision below is reversed on appeal; this opinion addresses whether such relief is available under § 3582(c)(2) for a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3582(c)(2) can reduce a sentence based on a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea | Government: No authority since sentence is not based on a lowered range | Brown: Relief may be available under Freeman’s framework | No; relief not available under the plea-based framework |
| Whether Sotomayor's concurrence exception applies when the plea agreement does not expressly reference a Guidelines range | Government: The exception does not apply | Brown: The exception could apply if applicable | No; exception not satisfied for this plea |
| Whether the district court had authority to grant the §3582(c)(2) modification | Government: District court lacked authority under the binding plea | Brown: District court should have authority | No; district court lacked authority to grant modification |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (Supreme Court 2011) (reported framework for §3582(c)(2) relief in Rule 11(c)(1)(C) cases; justices split, but Sotomayor concurrence governs)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (Supreme Court 1977) ( Marks rule for determining controlling opinion when no majority opinion)
- A.T. Massey Coal Co. v. Massanari, 305 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2002) (explains marks rule applicability in absence of majority)