United States v. Ricky Dixon
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14668
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Dixon pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess crack cocaine with intent to distribute under a binding plea agreement.
- The district court sentenced Dixon in 2001 to 15 years and 10 months, the term specified in the plea agreement.
- In 2011 Dixon sought a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on Amendment 750 to the Guidelines; district court denied, holding the sentence was based on the plea, not a lowered range.
- The court analyzed Freeman v. United States and applied Marks v. United States to determine the controlling law on whether a binding plea can be eligible for relief.
- Justice Sotomayor’s approach (as controlling under Marks) requires the plea agreement to expressly base the sentence on a Guidelines range to be eligible; here the written agreement did not.
- The court concluded Dixon’s sentence was not shown to be based on a subsequently lowered Guidelines range, and oral statements did not satisfy the exceptions; thus Dixon is not eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dixon’s sentence was based on a lowered guideline range | Dixon argues relief is available if sentence rests on the Guidelines. | The plea agreement binds the sentence, not a lowered range. | Not eligible; sentence not based on a lowered range. |
| Whether a binding plea agreement can qualify for § 3582(c)(2) relief | Freeman suggests relief may apply where the plea is tied to Guidelines. | Binding agreement is based on the agreement itself. | Not eligible under Sotomayor's controlling reasoning. |
| Whether oral sentencing statements can establish the basis for relief | Oral statements linked the sentence to the Guidelines range. | Written agreement governs; parol evidence cannot override it. | Oral statements insufficient per controlling Freeman approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (Supreme Court 2011) (majority split on whether plea-based sentences can be reduced under § 3582(c)(2))
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (Supreme Court 1977) (used to identify narrowest-ground controlling rationale when no single rationale has full agreement)
- Rivera-Martínez, 665 F.3d 344 (1st Cir. 2011) (defendant ineligible where plea agreement did not identify Guidelines range)
- Brown, 653 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2011) (defendant ineligible when plea agreement did not expressly use a Guidelines range)
- Fanfan, 558 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2009) (applies de novo review to scope of authority under § 3582(c)(2))