United States v. Jimmy Mack
694 F. App'x 347
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jimmy Wayne Mack pleaded guilty under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute ≥50 grams of methamphetamine and agreed the Government could recommend a sentence no greater than 20 years.
- At arrest and search, agents found methamphetamine, a drug ledger, phones, scales, and paraphernalia.
- The PSR calculated a Guidelines total offense level producing a life range (reduced to 480 months by statutory cap); neither party objected; Government moved for downward departure based on substantial assistance.
- District court accepted the plea agreement, granted a downward departure but imposed the agreed 240-month (20-year) sentence.
- Mack did not directly appeal; a §2255 motion was denied. He moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782; the district court denied relief and denied an untimely motion for reconsideration.
- Mack appealed pro se, challenging denial of §3582(c)(2) relief and the reconsideration denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / jurisdiction over motion for reconsideration | Mack argued reconsideration should be considered on merits | District court: motion filed >14 days after order; untimely and unauthorized, court lacked jurisdiction | Reconsideration was untimely; district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it |
| Eligibility for §3582(c)(2) reduction after Amendment 782 | Mack argued Amendment 782 lowered the Guidelines and entitled him to reduction; noted co-defendants received reductions | Government and court: Mack’s sentence was pursuant to an 11(c)(1)(C) agreement that did not base the term on a particular Guidelines range | Court held Mack’s Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement did not employ a particular Guidelines range and sentence was not "based on" a range lowered by Amendment 782; no §3582(c)(2) reduction |
| Whether plea agreement language precludes reduction | Mack argued the plea agreement’s 20-year cap does not bar a later §3582(c)(2) reduction | Court: a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement can be eligible only if it explicitly ties the term to a Guidelines range; Mack’s did not | Held that the plea agreement did not tie the 20-year term to a Guidelines range; thus reduction under §3582(c)(2) was not available |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140 (5th Cir.) (untimely post-judgment motions)
- United States v. Cook, 670 F.2d 46 (5th Cir.) (timeliness of post-judgment filings)
- United States v. Brewer, 60 F.3d 1142 (5th Cir.) (effect of motions on appellate timing)
- United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387 (5th Cir.) (notice-of-appeal timing is waivable)
- United States v. McSween, 53 F.3d 684 (5th Cir.) (affirmance may rest on any supporting record ground)
- United States v. Williams, 609 F.3d 368 (5th Cir.) (application of §3582(c)(2) to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreements)
- United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807 (5th Cir.) (Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea—when §3582(c)(2) relief is available)
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (Supreme Court) (Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreements eligible for §3582(c)(2) only if the agreement employs the applicable Guidelines range)