United States v. Heard
859 F. Supp. 2d 97
D.D.C.2012Background
- Heard pleaded guilty in 2003 to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.
- PSR established a Guidelines range of 188–235 months based on offense level 31 and criminal history VI as a career offender.
- The plea agreement stipulated a 48-month sentence, with unresolved concurrent/consecutive determination left to the Court.
- Sentencing followed, with Heard appealing the sentence; the D.C. Circuit upheld it.
- Between sentencing and later, retroactive crack-cocaine amendments were issued (amendments 706, 713, 750) affecting potential § 3582(c)(2) reductions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heard is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. | Heard's sentence was based on a lowered range after amendments. | The plea agreement shows the sentence was not based on a lowered range. | Not eligible; sentence not based on a subsequently lowered range. |
| Whether Freeman governs the outcome. | Justice Sotomayor's concurrence controls, allowing reduction when based on the agreement. | Freeman precludes reductions for Rule 11(c)(1)(C) pleas with no ‘based on’ intent. | Freeman’s holding applies; sentence was not shown to be based on a reduced range. |
| Whether the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement shows the sentence was 'based on' a Guidelines range. | The agreement reflects the basis for sentencing could be a lower range. | No explicit indication the agreed sentence was based on a Guidelines range later reduced. | Not based on a reduced Guidelines range; plea itself silent on basis. |
| Whether Heard remains eligible due to career-offender guidelines. | Career-offender range could be modified by § 3582(c)(2). | Career offender sentence generally fixes the range; reductions unavailable. | In this case, career-offender status does not salvage eligibility; otherwise precluded here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011) (holds Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreements can be based on a guidelines range for § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Turner, 825 F. Supp. 2d 240 (D.D.C. 2011) (acknowledges Freeman framework in DC circuit)
- United States v. Walker, 818 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D.D.C. 2011) (focuses on plea agreement language to determine ‘based on’ range)
- United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 665 F.3d 344 (1st Cir. 2011) (modification available where appropriate except when blocked by plea terms)
- United States v. Brown, 653 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2011) (discusses Freeman implications for § 3582(c)(2) with Rule 11(c)(1)(C) pleas)
- United States v. Smith, 658 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2011) (endorses view that Freeman controls certain reductions post-plea agreements)