United States v. Leonard, 844 F.3d 102

Leonard pleaded guilty in 2008 under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) to drug conspiracy and money laundering; the plea specified a guideline range of 97–121 months based on the Guidelines calculations.
At sentencing, the district court independently calculated a 121–151 month guideline range, adopted a four-point role enhancement and a higher criminal history category, but sentenced Leonard within the 97–121 month range per the plea agreement, imposing 114 months’ imprisonment.
Post-sentencing, Amendments 782 and 788 lowered the relevant drug guidelines ranges, retroactively applying to Leonard.
Leonard moved for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction, arguing his sentence was based on the Guidelines and that the amendments lowered the applicable range to 78–97 months, which would permit a larger reduction.
The district court denied relief, concluding Leonard was ineligible because his sentence was based on the plea agreement range, not the district court’s later calculation, and the court sentenced him within the amended lower range; the Second Circuit vacated and remanded for a proper § 3582(c)(2) determination.
The opinion ultimately holds Leonard eligible for some reduction but limits the extent to the amended 97–113 month range, requiring remand for discretionary decision on the amount of reduction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility based on guidelines after amendment	Leonard: sentence was based on Guidelines under Freeman	Government: sentence based on plea agreement; reduction not allowed	Leonard eligible; remanded for discretion on amount of reduction
Applicable range after amendments	Agreed range (97–121) became applicable; lowered to 78–97	District court's 121–151 remained applicable; no further reduction	Applicable range remained 121–151, but amended to 97–121; reduction allowed within 97–113 upon remand
Effect of Freeman concurrence vs. Commentary amendment	Freeman concurrence controls; 97–121 was based on Guidelines	Commentary defines applicable range as court-determined pre-departure; parties’ range not controlling	Commentary definition supersedes; Leonard eligible for reduction within 97–113 on remand

Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (addressed whether 11(c)(1)(C) sentences can be § 3582(c)(2) reductions based on Guidelines)
Pleasant, 704 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2013) (separate analysis for eligibility; lowered applicable range not automatically eligible)
Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc; clarifies Freeman reasoning pre-dates later amendment)
Sotomayor, J., concurring in Freeman, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (argues 11(c)(1)(C) sentence can be eligible if range lowered)
United States v. Smith, 658 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2011) (addressed 11(c)(1)(C) issues in Freeman framework)
United States v. Epps, 707 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (discusses Freeman rationale for eligibility)
United States v. McCall, 649 F. App’x 114 (2d Cir. 2016) (distinguished; Freeman footprint on 3582(c)(2) eligibility)