United States v. Kendrick Melton
861 F.3d 1320
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2006–2007 Kendrick Melton and Glenda Flores pleaded guilty under plea agreements that reserved sentencing to the court, acknowledged the Guidelines as advisory, and promised the government would move for a §5K1.1 or Rule 35 departure if the defendants provided substantial assistance; the agreements said nothing about §3553(e) motions.
- At original sentencing the government filed §5K1.1 motions: Melton received a five-level reduction and a variance to the 120‑month statutory mandatory minimum; Flores received a 25% reduction to a 120‑month statutory mandatory minimum.
- In 2014 Amendment 782 retroactively lowered drug offense offense levels; in 2015 it became retroactive, giving lower post‑Amendment guideline ranges for both defendants.
- In 2015 each defendant moved under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) for resentencing based on Amendment 782; they argued the government should be required to file §3553(e) motions so the court could sentence below the statutory minimum and preserve the original value of their substantial‑assistance concessions.
- The district court ordered the government to file §3553(e) motions; the government complied under protest and defendants’ sentences were reduced below statutory minima. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding the plea agreements did not obligate the government to file §3553(e) motions and the district court erred in rewriting the bargains.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea agreements obligated the government to file §3553(e) motions at a post‑Amendment §3582(c)(2) resentencing | Melton/Flores: the government’s prior §5K1.1 motions and the plea language (plus Rule 35 reference) implied a continuing promise to secure the same downward relief later, including filing §3553(e) if necessary | Government: plea agreements only promised to move under §5K1.1 or Rule 35 for substantial assistance; they made no promise to file §3553(e) now or later | Court: No. Pleas unambiguously promised only §5K1.1/Rule 35 motions; court may not add a new obligation to file §3553(e) years later. |
| Whether a district court may require the government to file a §3553(e) motion in a §3582(c)(2) proceeding to effectuate a retroactive Guidelines reduction | Melton/Flores: the court should be able to require the government to file §3553(e) to avoid depriving defendants of the bargained‑for value of their assistance | Government: it never promised to file §3553(e); it contends §3553(e) is not available in §3582(c)(2) proceedings | Court: Did not need to decide the broader §3553(e)‑in‑§3582 issue; reversed because plea agreements contained no promise to file §3553(e), so district court erred in compelling such motions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120 (1996) (a §5K1.1 motion is not equivalent to a §3553(e) motion)
- United States v. Peters, 524 F.3d 905 (8th Cir.) (2008) (statutory mandatory minimum controls eligibility for §3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Howle, 166 F.3d 1166 (11th Cir. 1999) (district court may not modify plea agreement terms or rewrite bargains)
- United States v. Bownes, 405 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2005) (contracts and plea bargains allocate risk of future legal change; courts shouldn’t rewrite bargains to protect against hindsight)