United States v. Calvin Bailey, Jr.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6535
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Calvin Bailey, Jr. pled guilty under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base; the district court accepted the agreement.
- The plea agreement stipulated a base offense level of 16 (U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(c)(12)), specified drug quantity (2.8–<5.6 grams), eligibility for a 2-level acceptance reduction, and agreed to a 96-month term of imprisonment.
- At plea time the PSIR was incomplete; the parties anticipated two possible Guidelines ranges depending on criminal history: a low range (offense level 14, CHC VI → 37–46 months) and a career-offender range (offense level 32 → 168–210 months).
- The Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 782, lowering drug offense levels by two, made retroactive, potentially reducing many sentences.
- Bailey moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction based on Amendment 782; the district court denied relief, finding Bailey’s sentence was not "based on" the Guidelines because it resulted from the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, applying Freeman and concluding the plea did not make clear that the 96-month term was based on a particular Guidelines range subsequently lowered by the Commission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sentence imposed under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea is "based on" a Guidelines range for §3582(c)(2) eligibility | Bailey: plea explicitly references Guidelines provisions and base offense level, so sentence is based in part on a Guidelines range lowered by Amendment 782 | Gov't/District Ct: the 96-month term was the product of a negotiated Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, not expressly based on any particular Guidelines range | The plea did not "make clear" that the 96-month term was based on a particular Guidelines range; §3582(c)(2) inapplicable; affirm denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011) (Clarifies when Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentences are eligible for §3582(c)(2) reduction)
- United States v. Scurlark, 560 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for §3582(c)(2) legal questions)
- United States v. Browne, 698 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 2012) (treats Sotomayor concurrence in Freeman as controlling)
- United States v. Thompson, 682 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2012) (same conclusion on Freeman concurrence)
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (articulates narrowest-grounds principle for majority holdings)