United States v. Graham
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 977
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Graham was convicted of distributing crack cocaine and sentenced to 25 years under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.
- He filed a pro se §3582(c)(2) motion seeking a sentence reduction based on the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and Amendment 750.
- The district court denied the motion, holding the sentence was set by the plea agreement, not the Guidelines.
- Supreme Court Freeman v. United States addressed whether such Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentences may be reduced when the Guideline is retroactively amended.
- This court and others concluded Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence provides the controlling narrow ground; the court treated Graham’s request as governed by law-of-the-case.
- The court ultimately vacated and remanded for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Graham is entitled to a §3582(c)(2) reduction. | Graham argues Amendment 750 applies to his sentence. | Graham’s sentence was based on a plea agreement, not a Guidelines range. | Not entitled; jurisdictional dismissal ordered. |
| Whether the sentence was based on a Guidelines range or the plea agreement. | Graham's plea allows retroactive guideline reduction. | Sentence was fixed by the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. | Based on plea agreement, not a Guideline range. |
| What governs the effect of Freeman on retroactive reductions for Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentences. | Freeman supports reductions when retroactive amendments apply. | Freeman is limited to circumstances where guidelines are used in plea sentencing. | Freeman governs but here the sentence isn’t tied to a Guideline range. |
| Whether law-of-the-case requires a different conclusion from Graham’s earlier §3582(c)(2) ruling. | Law-of-the-case compels retroactive relief. | Law-of-the-case supports the prior conclusion that there was no Guideline-based basis. | Law-of-the-case forecloses a Guideline-based basis for reduction. |
| Appropriate disposition of the §3582(c)(2) motion after ruling. | District court should grant relief if eligible. | Relief is not available due to lack of Guideline-based basis. | Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (vacate and remand). |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011) (whether Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentences are eligible for §3582(c)(2) relief when guidelines are amended)
- Osborn, 679 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2012) (Guideline amendments are retroactive only to certain contexts; FSA retroactivity limits apply)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (_lack of jurisdiction to modify sentence once imposed; general principle)
- Smartt, 129 F.3d 539 (10th Cir. 1997) (district court may modify a sentence when statutorily authorized under §3582(c)(2))
- Rhodes, 549 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 2008) (scope of §3582(c)(2) determined de novo; sentencing ranges and reductions)
- Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (1983) (law-of-the-case concept in context of controlling legal principles)