United States v. David Duvall
403 U.S. App. D.C. 339
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- Duvall and associates distributed large quantities of powder cocaine to mid-level dealers (2007–2009).
- Duvall was arrested in 2009 and indicted for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine.
- Duvall pled guilty under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) to a plea agreement that set a specific sentence of 15 years; the district court accepted and imposed 14 years.
- In 2011 the Sentencing Commission enacted retroactive crack-guideline reductions; Duvall moved for a downward sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
- The district court denied relief, holding the sentence was based on the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, not a Guidelines range; on appeal, the court discussed Freeman v. United States and Berry; the judgment was affirmed.
- There is a separate concurrence addressing whether the defendant had adequate time to hire new counsel and expressing disagreement with the controlling Freeman framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea-based sentence is eligible for §3582(c)(2) relief | Duvall argues the sentence was based on a Guidelines range and thus eligible | The sentence was based on the plea agreement, not the Guidelines range | Not eligible; affirmed |
| Whether the district court violated procedure by limiting the defendant’s time to hire new counsel | Duvall contends he needed more time to obtain substitute counsel | Court adequately managed counsel changes; no prejudice | No plain error; affirmed |
| Whether Sotomayor’s Freeman framework governs §3582(c)(2) analysis for Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea cases | Duvall relies on Freeman to show eligibility | Berry and Marks guidance apply; Freeman controls the outcome | Freeman controls; not applicable here under the court’s reading of the plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (U.S. 2011) (two analyses for when a sentence is based on a Guidelines range under §3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Berry, 618 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (rules for §3582(c)(2) relief when plea did not expressly tie to a lower guideline range)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1977) (method for identifying controlling Supreme Court authority in splinter opinions)
- King v. Palmer, 950 F.2d 771 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (explores patchwork of Supreme Court opinions to determine governing principle)