United States v. Kevin Weatherspoon
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20981
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Weatherspoon pled guilty to a C plea for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and received a 120-month sentence under a binding plea agreement.
- Amendment 706 lowered the cocaine base guidelines retroactively, reducing his total offense level and guideline range.
- Weatherspoon’s first § 3582(c)(2) motion was denied because the plea agreement was binding and not based on the Guidelines.
- Freeman v. United States changed the law, allowing some C-plea defendants to seek § 3582(c)(2) relief if the agreement showed the Guidelines were the basis for the term.
- Weatherspoon filed a second § 3582(c)(2) motion; the district court denied, and the Third Circuit reviews jurisdiction and eligibility de novo.
- The court applies Justice Sotomayor’s framework from Freeman to determine whether the 120-month sentence was based on the Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a second § 3582(c)(2) motion. | Weatherspoon argues jurisdiction to entertain a second motion exists. | Government argues limitations on successive motions may bar review. | Jurisdiction exists to hear a second § 3582(c)(2) motion. |
| Whether Weatherspoon was eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2) after Amendment 706. | Because the amended range would yield a lower sentence, relief should follow. | Eligibility depends on whether the sentence was based on the Guidelines and the agreement. | Eligibility turns on whether the plea agreement shows the sentence was based on the Guidelines. |
| Whether the (C) plea agreement shows the sentence was | Agreement expresses a fixed term without citing a Guidelines range. | Sotomayor framework requires explicit reliance on Guidelines in the agreement. | Sentence was not shown to be based on the Guidelines; relief denied. |
| Whether Freeman controls the outcome here. | Freeman allows relief where the agreement uses the Guidelines as a foundation. | Freeman’s test requires explicit range or range-based basis in the agreement. | Freeman framework applied; the agreement did not specify a Guidelines range. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (S. Ct. 2011) (defines when (C) plea sentences are 'based on' the Guidelines)
- Sanchez v. United States, 562 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2009) (binding (C) plea defendants not eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- Rivera-Martínez v. United States, 665 F.3d 344 (1st Cir. 2011) (not entitled to § 3582(c)(2) relief when agreement lacks range information)
- Austin v. United States, 676 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2012) (relief unavailable where plea lacks criminal history info)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (jurisdictional limits and interpretation of statutory restrictions)
- Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360 (U.S. 2007) (limits on jurisdiction should be construed nonjurisdictionally unless explicit)