United States v. James
702 F. App'x 24
2d Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Firkon James convicted of conspiracy to traffic in crack cocaine and originally sentenced to 300 months (below Guidelines); moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) after Guidelines amendments to reduce sentence.
- At sentencing the district court calculated an "applicable" Guidelines range of 324–405 months (offense level 36 adjusted to 38 before acceptance credit; criminal history VI due to career-offender status under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1).
- 2014 Guidelines amendments lowered drug-quantity base offense levels, which would reduce James’s adjusted offense level from 38 to at least 36 but career-offender rules capped the applicable offense level at 37, producing a post-amendment total offense level of 35 after acceptance credit.
- That amended range (with CH VI) became 292–365 months; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2) bars reducing below the low end of the amended range, so district court reduced sentence only to 292 months and denied further reduction.
- James argued his "applicable" Guidelines range should be the range in his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement (level 36, CH IV -> 262–327), which would allow a lower amended range and potentially a sentence down to the statutory minimum; district court relied on United States v. Leonard and denied relief further.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (James) | Defendant's Argument (Government / District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "applicable" Guidelines range for § 3582(c)(2) is the range the district court calculated pre-Rule 11(c)(1)(C) acceptance or the range agreed in the plea | James: the plea-agreement range (level 36, CH IV) is the applicable range; thus amended reductions could produce a lower range permitting a greater sentence cut | Government/District Ct.: the applicable range is the court-calculated Guidelines range before acceptance of any 11(c)(1)(C) agreement (per Leonard); career-offender anchor prevents larger reduction | Court: Affirms district court; applicable range is court-calculated pre-acceptance; cannot reduce below amended low-end 292 months |
| Effect of career-offender classification on § 3582(c)(2) reduction | James: amended drug-quantity levels would substantially lower his base offense level and allow larger reduction | Government/District Ct.: career-offender provision caps offense level (37), limiting the benefit of drug-quantity amendments | Court: Career-offender status anchors offense level, so amendments yielded only a reduction to level producing 292–365 months range |
| Whether Leonard binding or erroneous | James: Leonard was wrong and should not control | Government: Leonard controls in this circuit; panel bound by precedent | Court: Leonard remains binding; James’s challenge fails |
| Timeliness of appeal | Government suggested untimeliness but declined to press; moved to merits | James: not applicable as remedy sought | Court: Government waived timeliness; merits reached |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leonard, 844 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2016) (defines "applicable" Guidelines range as that calculated by the district court before acceptance of an 11(c)(1)(C) agreement)
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (addresses interplay of Rule 11 agreements and Guidelines calculations)
- United States v. Smith, 658 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2011) (concerning applicability of Guidelines reductions following plea agreements)
- Doscher v. Sea Port Grp. Sec., LLC, 832 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 2016) (panel bound by prior precedents absent en banc or Supreme Court reversal)