United States v. Ricardo Epps
404 U.S. App. D.C. 39
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Epps was sentenced in 1999 to 188 months’ imprisonment under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea associated with crack cocaine provisions, with five years’ supervised release.
- The district court calculated a Guidelines range of 210–260 months but accepted a downward departure to 188 months, acknowledging disparities between crack and powder cocaine.
- In 2008, Epps moved under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence in light of retroactive crack-cocaine guideline reductions; the district court denied the motion.
- Epps appealed, contending his sentence was based on a Guidelines range that had since been lowered, triggering § 3582(c)(2) relief, despite the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea.
- Questions arose whether the appeal was moot given Epps’s release and the ongoing five-year supervised-release term.
- The court ultimately held there is jurisdiction to review and remanded for district court consideration of § 3582(c)(2) relief, adopting a Freeman-based approach to determine when a sentence is “based on” a lowered range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Epps seek § 3582(c)(2) relief after a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence? | Epps: sentence was based on a lowered range; § 3582(c)(2) applies. | Government: sentence not based on Guidelines; § 3582(c)(2) not applicable. | Eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief; remand for merits. |
| Is the appeal moot due to Epps’s release and ongoing supervised release? | Appeal not moot because relief could affect supervised release. | ||
| Release renders any relief illusory; mootness applies. | Not moot; remand appropriate to address pre-amendment issues. | ||
| Which Freeman rationale governs: plurality or concurrence? | Concurring approach may control when plea means ‘based on’ Guidelines. | Plurality approach governs; concurrence not controlling. | Freeman’s plurality approach governs; § 3582(c)(2) relief not invariably barred. |
| Did the district court err in the legal standard for determining 'based on'? | Guidelines and policy statements anchor the sentence; ‘based on’ the lowered range. | Courts should examine the parties’ intent and plea terms. | Freeman plurality-based standard is persuasive; sentence was based on Guidelines range. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (Supreme Court 2011) (fractured plurality on § 3582(c)(2) eligibility in Rule 11(c)(1)(C) cases)
- United States v. Duvall, 705 F.3d 479 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (discusses Freeman framework and Marks v. United States)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (Supreme Court 1977) (spirits of narrowly-tailored grounds when multiple opinions exist)
- King v. Palmer, 950 F.2d 771 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (en banc discussion on Marks and controlling rationales)
- Johnson v. United States, 331 F.3d 962 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (retroactivity and supervised release interpretations after 2002 amendment)
- Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (Supreme Court 1968) (parallels on collateral consequences and mootness notions)
- Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 (Supreme Court 1982) (parole term mootness considerations)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1998) (mootness doctrine and collateral consequences analysis)
- Bundy v. United States, 391 Fed. App’x 886 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (mootness and collateral consequences discussion in unpublished decision)
- Berry v. United States, 618 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (discussion of § 3582(c)(2) applicability to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) cases)