United States v. Colbert Thompson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12354
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Thompson pled guilty to distribution of fewer than five grams of crack cocaine and was sentenced as a career offender due to two prior felonies.
- Career offender designation produced a higher offense level and a career-offender range (151–188 months) versus a non-career-offender range (46–57 months).
- The Sentencing Commission retroactively lowered crack guidelines; Mateo held a career offender sentenced under those guidelines was not eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief.
- Freeman (2011) addressed whether a sentence could be “based on” a sentencing range under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreements for § 3582(c)(2) relief.
- Thompson moved for § 3582(c)(2) relief post-Freeman, but the district court and then the panel reasoned Mateo controlled and denied relief.
- The court held, applying Marks v. United States, that Sotomayor’s concurrence is the controlling Freeman interpretation and Mateo remains binding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Freeman overruns Mateo regarding § 3582(c)(2) relief. | Thompson argues Freeman calls Mateo into question and should overrule it. | The Government argues Mateo remains good law and Freeman does not overrule it. | Mateo remains binding; Freeman does not overrule Mateo. |
| Whether Thompson is eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief where the crack guideline amendment did not lower the actual sentenced range used. | Mateo/Thompson contend the amendment should lower the range used at sentencing to permit relief. | Mateo holds relief unavailable because the actual sentencing range used was the career-offender range, not the crack-offense range. | Relief denied; Mateo's interpretation remains consistent with Freeman. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2009) (held crack-offense amendment did not lower the actual range used at sentencing for a career offender)
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (Supreme Court 2011) (whether sentence under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) can be ‘based on’ a guidelines range for § 3582(c)(2))
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (Supreme Court 1977) (principle for identifying controlling rationale in splintered Supreme Court decisions)
- United States v. Jackson, 594 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 2010) (discussed Marks framework in variant Freeman analyses)
- Rivera-Martinez, 665 F.3d 344 (1st Cir. 2011) (cites the narrowing vs broader rationale in Freeman)