United States v. David May
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7253
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- David May pleaded guilty in 2009 under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to drug and firearms counts and was sentenced to a total of 240 months (180 months on drug counts, concurrent 120 months on felon-in-possession count, consecutive 60 months on §924(c)).
- The plea agreement stipulated an offense level (30) but did not stipulate a criminal history category or expressly tie the agreed prison term to a particular Guidelines sentencing range.
- Amendment 782 (made retroactive by Amendment 788) lowered certain drug-related offense levels in the Sentencing Guidelines in 2014.
- The district court, sua sponte, denied May a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in February 2015 on the ground that his sentence was not “based on” the Guidelines because it derived from a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement that did not use a Guidelines range.
- May, represented by counsel later, moved for reconsideration in September 2015; the district court denied it and May timely appealed the denial of reconsideration.
- The government did not invoke the district-court-level prohibition against § 3582(c)(2) motions for reconsideration; the Fourth Circuit treated that limitation as non-jurisdictional and therefore waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sentence imposed under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea that stipulates an offense level but not criminal history is "based on" a Guidelines range for § 3582(c)(2) relief | May: the plea ties the 180-month drug sentence to the drug Guidelines and thus qualifies for a reduction under Amendment 782 | Government/District Court: the plea did not expressly base the sentence on a Guidelines range (no criminal history stipulation), so § 3582(c)(2) relief is unavailable | Held: Not based on a Guidelines range; § 3582(c)(2) relief denied. |
| Whether the district-court prohibition on § 3582(c)(2)-based motions for reconsideration is jurisdictional | May: (implicitly) challenged denial of reconsideration; argued entitlement to relief on merits | Government: initially did not assert the Goodwyn-based jurisdictional bar at district court; on appeal did not invoke it | Held: The Goodwyn prohibition is non-jurisdictional and thus waivable; government waived it by failing to raise it below. |
| Whether courts may look beyond the four corners of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea to find an agreed-upon Guidelines range | May: background negotiations/facts could show the sentence was tied to Guidelines | District Court/Government: Freeman directs focus to the plea agreement itself; no "archeological dig" | Held: Inquiry confined to the plea agreement; absent an express link to a Guidelines range, no relief. |
| Whether an offense-level stipulation alone suffices to make the sentence "based on" a Guidelines range | May: offense-level stipulation ties sentence to Guidelines regardless of criminal-history stipulation | Government/District Court: an agreed-upon Guidelines range requires both offense level and criminal-history agreement | Held: Offense-level alone insufficient; an agreed criminal-history category (or similar express tie) is required for § 3582(c)(2) eligibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (controlling for when an 11(c)(1)(C) sentence is "based on" a Guidelines range; Sotomayor concurrence is controlling)
- United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2010) (recognized limits on successive or reconsideration § 3582(c)(2) motions)
- United States v. Scott, 711 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2013) (held that a proposed term in an 11(c)(1)(C) plea lacking a criminal-history stipulation is not "based on" a Guidelines range)
- United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 665 F.3d 344 (1st Cir. 2011) (similar holding that an 11(c)(1)(C) sentence without an express Guidelines-range tie does not qualify for § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussed prohibition on successive § 3582(c)(2) motions; cited in waiver analysis)
- United States v. Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 416 (3d Cir. 2012) (addressed waiver and successive motion issues under § 3582(c)(2))