United States v. Jimmy Thornton
697 F. App'x 897
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jimmy Lee Thornton pleaded guilty under a plea agreement that stated his sentence "should be calculated pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines" and that a guidelines-range sentence would be reasonable.
- Thornton faced a statutory mandatory minimum of 60 months’ imprisonment. His initially calculated Guidelines range was 46–57 months; later guideline amendments would have lowered it to 30–37 months.
- Thornton moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on the lowered Guidelines range; the district court granted a reduction to a lower term.
- The government appealed the reduction. The Ninth Circuit ordered supplemental briefing about the effect of United States v. Davis on Thornton’s eligibility.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded Thornton’s sentence was influenced by the Guidelines language in his plea, but the 60‑month statutory minimum displaced the calculated Guidelines range, making him ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thornton is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction when his Guidelines range would have been lowered by Commission amendments. | The Government: Thornton is ineligible because the statutory minimum displaced the Guidelines range. | Thornton: His plea agreement tied his sentence to the Guidelines, so a since‑rejected Guideline amendment (per Davis/Freeman) makes him eligible. | Court: Ineligible — mandatory minimum exceeded the calculated range and thus displaced it, barring § 3582(c)(2) relief. |
| Whether a sentence imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C)-type agreement can be "based on" the Guidelines such that a later guideline amendment permits a reduction. | N/A (issue resolved by precedent relied on by Thornton). | N/A | Court: Agrees with Davis that a sentence containing a Guidelines factor can be "based on" the Guidelines, but that does not overcome a statutory minimum that displaces the range. |
| Whether eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) is waivable or forfeited if not raised below. | Thornton: (implicitly) district court already granted relief; forfeiture not decisive. | Government: Argued in appeal that mandatory minimum bars reduction despite not raising it below. | Court: Treated as jurisdictional per Spears, so court must consider it even if not raised below. |
| Whether the district court must reinstate the original sentence if reduction was improper. | Government: Yes, reinstate original 96‑month sentence. | Thornton: Opposed. | Court: Reversed district court, vacated reduced sentence, remanded to reinstate original 96 months. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (adopts Freeman reasoning; a sentence is likely "based on" Guidelines if one factor was a since‑rejected Guideline)
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (plurality: a sentence may be "based on" Guidelines even when arising from a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement)
- United States v. Spears, 824 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 2016) (eligibility under § 3582(c)(2) is a jurisdictional question)
- United States v. Jackson, 577 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (mandatory minimum exceeding Guidelines range makes defendant ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- United States v. Mullanix, 99 F.3d 323 (9th Cir. 1996) (same principle regarding mandatory minimum displacing Guidelines range)