United States v. Gonzalez
680 F. App'x 46
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Francisco Gonzalez pleaded guilty under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) to cocaine and firearms offenses and received a stipulated 101‑month sentence.
- The district court independently calculated Gonzalez’s Guidelines range at 78–97 months, while the plea agreement referenced a 63–78 or 78–97 calculation and authorized an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21 for dismissed/uncharged conduct.
- Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines subsequently lowered Gonzalez’s applicable Guidelines range from 78–97 to 63–78 months.
- Gonzalez moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782; the district court denied relief as unavailable because Gonzalez was sentenced under an 11(c)(1)(C) agreement.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo whether Gonzalez was eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2) and whether his sentence was “based on” and the amendment was “applicable to” his Guidelines range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an 11(c)(1)(C) stipulated above‑Guidelines sentence can be “based on” the Guidelines for § 3582(c)(2) eligibility | Gov’t: the agreed sentence rests on non‑Guidelines factors (e.g., not filing § 851 info) and thus is not “based on” the Guidelines | Gonzalez: district court used the Guidelines calculation and cited § 5K2.21 departure, so the sentence was based on the Guidelines | Court: Sentence was “based on” the Guidelines under Freeman plurality and concurrence because the court calculated and relied on the Guidelines and the plea agreement tied the departure to the Guidelines. |
| Whether the amendment to the Guidelines was “applicable to” Gonzalez for § 3582(c)(2) purposes | Gov’t: argued ineligibility given the 11(c)(1)(C) framework | Gonzalez: amendment lowered the court‑determined Guidelines range that informed sentencing | Court: The applicable Guidelines range is the court‑determined range before departures; Amendment 782 lowered that range (78–97 → 63–78), so it is “applicable to” him. |
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) relief must be granted if eligible | Gov’t: relief not automatic; court retains discretion | Gonzalez: seeks reduction if eligible | Court: Eligibility established, but district court retains discretion whether to reduce sentence and by how much. |
| Whether remand is required | Gov’t: district court denial affirmed | Gonzalez: seeks vacatur and resentencing consideration | Court: Vacated denial and remanded for the district court to consider § 3582(c)(2) reduction in its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (plurality and concurrence analyzing when an 11(c)(1)(C) sentence is “based on” the Guidelines for § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Leonard, 844 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2016) (defines applicable Guidelines range and applies Freeman to § 3582(c)(2) eligibility)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (district court retains discretion whether to grant a § 3582(c)(2) reduction)
- United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2009) (procedural guidance on § 3582(c)(2) reductions)