United States v. Erik Lindsey Hughes
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3487
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Erik Hughes pleaded guilty to federal methamphetamine conspiracy and being a felon in possession of a firearm and entered a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement calling for a 180‑month sentence.
- The district court calculated the Guidelines range as 188–235 months but accepted the parties’ agreed 180‑month sentence.
- After Amendment 782 lowered certain drug offense offense levels retroactively, Hughes moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a reduced sentence (his recalculated range would be 151–188 months).
- The district court denied relief, concluding Hughes’s sentence was not “based on a sentencing range” as required by § 3582(c)(2), relying on Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence in Freeman v. United States.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo the legal question of § 3582(c)(2) eligibility and for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hughes) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant sentenced under a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea is "sentenced based on a sentencing range" for § 3582(c)(2) eligibility | Hughes: Yes — the judge calculated and considered the Guidelines so the sentence is based on the Guidelines range and thus eligible for reduction | Gov: No — where the sentence is a specific agreed term and the agreement does not tie that term to a particular Guidelines range, the sentence is based on the agreement, not the Guidelines | Held: No — applying Marks, Sotomayor’s Freeman concurrence controls; Hughes’s agreement did not call for sentencing within a Guidelines range nor make clear the 180 months was based on a Guidelines range, so § 3582(c)(2) relief is unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (establishes method for identifying the controlling opinion when the Supreme Court issues a fragmented decision)
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (plurality and Sotomayor concurrence splitting on whether Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentences are "based on" the Guidelines)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (describes § 3582(c)(2) framework permitting sentence reductions when sentence was based on a Guidelines range subsequently lowered)
- O’Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151 (Marks applied to adopt a concurring opinion as the controlling narrow ground)