United States v. McCall (McCall)
649 F. App'x 114
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Michael McCall pleaded guilty under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) to conspiring to distribute oxycodone and agreed to a 108-month term of imprisonment.
- The plea agreement included parties’ Guidelines calculations reflecting a 108–135 month range; at sentencing the parties and probation found the correct Guidelines range was actually 121–151 months due to a miscalculation (an added enhancement).
- Because the agreed 108-month term fell below the correctly calculated Guidelines range, the district court accepted the plea agreement and imposed the 108-month non‑Guidelines sentence; the government did not object.
- McCall moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782, which lowered certain drug‑quantity base offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.
- The district court denied relief; McCall appealed pro se to the Second Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCall’s Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence is "based on" the Guidelines range in the plea agreement such that he is eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief after Amendment 782 | McCall: the agreed 108‑month term was based on the parties’ Guidelines calculation in the plea agreement and thus qualifies for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction when the applicable Guidelines are lowered | Government: the district court imposed a non‑Guidelines sentence after concluding the plea calculation was erroneous and applied the correct (higher) Guidelines range, so the sentence was not "based on" the plea Guidelines range | The Second Circuit held McCall is eligible for resentencing: under Freeman, because the plea agreement controlled and the court accepted its terms, the sentence was "based on" the parties’ chosen Guidelines range; remanded for resentencing under § 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10 |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (concurrence identifies when an 11(c)(1)(C) agreement is "based on" a Guidelines range and supports resentencing when the parties’ chosen range is later lowered)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (two‑step framework for § 3582(c)(2) relief: determine scope of reduction and then whether § 3553(a) factors warrant a reduction)
- United States v. Williams, 551 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2009) (de novo review standard for whether a sentence was "based on" an amended Guidelines range)