United States v. Joshua Simmons
670 F. App'x 319
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Joshua Simmons pleaded guilty in 2008 to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.
- The plea agreement stipulated a binding sentence of 240 months and did not reference any specific Guidelines range or offense level.
- Simmons moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on subsequent lowering of the Sentencing Guidelines.
- The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion, concluding Simmons’s sentence was imposed pursuant to the binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, not “based on” a Guidelines range.
- Simmons appealed, arguing that his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence was nevertheless tied to a Guidelines range and thus eligible for reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sentence imposed under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement is eligible for reduction under § 3582(c)(2) when the plea agreement does not reference a Guidelines range | Simmons: his 240-month sentence should be eligible because Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentences can be "based on" Guidelines under certain formulations | Government/District Court: sentence was a stipulated term not tied to any Guidelines range, so § 3582(c)(2) does not apply | Court: Affirmed—sentence was not "based on" a Guidelines range; § 3582(c)(2) reduction unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2009) (standards for § 3582(c)(2) review)
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for sentence-reduction motions)
- United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807 (5th Cir. 2016) (when Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreements permit § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (concurrence outlining circumstances where a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence may be tied to Guidelines)