United States v. McNeese, 819 F.3d 922

McNeese, a pharmacy owner, pleaded guilty under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute oxycodone after admitting to supplying large quantities of pills; the agreement stipulated distribution equivalent to 2,999.925 kg marijuana and agreed to a 63‑month sentence.
The plea agreement did not mention the Sentencing Guidelines or any Guidelines range; it noted McNeese’s cooperation but said nothing about offense level or criminal‑history category.
The probation officer’s presentence report (using facts in the plea) calculated a base offense level of 32, adjustments producing an offense level of 29 and a Guidelines range of 87–108 months.
At sentencing the government and court discussed that a 3‑level reduction and other factors produced a Guidelines range consistent with the agreed 63‑month term; the court accepted the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement and imposed 63 months.
After Amendment 782/788 reduced drug offense levels retroactively, McNeese moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence; the district court denied relief because the plea agreement did not reference a Guidelines range.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding McNeese’s agreement did not make a Guidelines range “evident from the agreement itself” as required by Freeman (Sotomayor concurrence) and Sixth Circuit precedent.

Issue	McNeese's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence is "based on" a Guidelines range for § 3582(c)(2) when the plea agreement does not reference Guidelines but the PSR and sentencing colloquy show Guideline reliance	The plea facts and sentencing record show the 63‑month term was derived from a Guidelines range (including a 3‑level §5K1.1 reduction), so § 3582(c)(2) relief should be available	Under Freeman (Sotomayor concurrence) and Sixth Circuit precedent, a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement supports § 3582(c)(2) relief only if a Guidelines range is evident from the agreement itself; parol evidence and later statements cannot establish that	Held for Government: no § 3582(c)(2) relief because the plea agreement contained no explicit reference to a Guidelines range and therefore did not show the sentence was “based on” such a range

Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (plurality and Sotomayor concurrence: a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence may be “based on” Guidelines only when the agreement makes a Guidelines range evident)
United States v. Peveler, 359 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2004) (Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentences generally not treated as based on Guidelines for § 3582(c)(2))
United States v. Riley, 726 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2013) (adopting Sotomayor concurrence as controlling framework in the Sixth Circuit)
United States v. Garrett, 758 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 2014) (relief available where plea agreement explicitly referenced a Guidelines range)
United States v. Smith, 658 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2011) (finding § 3582(c)(2) relief only where plea agreement explicitly references Guidelines)