United States v. Robert Pleasant
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 26
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Pleasant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- Plea agreement acknowledged potential Career Offender status but sought crack-cocaine guidelines sentence (§ 2D1.1).
- District court varianced to crack-cocaine range, sentencing Pleasant to 77 months.
- FSA amendments lowered crack-cocaine penalties; Amendments 748, 749, 759 followed, with 759 retroactive.
- Pleasant sought § 3582(c)(2) relief; district court granted reduction relying on Freeman v. United States (2011).
- The government argued Career Offender guidelines (unamended) controlled; issue centered on whether applicable guidelines were pre- or post-departure and pre-variance.
- Court reverses, holding Pleasant’s applicable guidelines were Career Offender, and § 3582 relief not available; remand to reinstate original sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pleasant is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. | Pleasant was sentenced under cracked-cocaine guidelines; amendments lowered those ranges. | Pleasant’s applicable range was the Career Offender range, which was not amended. | Yes for eligibility? Reversed later; see Held per issue below. |
| What is Pleasant’s applicable guideline range after Amendment 759? | Amendment 759 retroactively recalibrates the applicable range. | Career Offender range remains the applicable guideline. | Pleasant’s applicable range is Career Offender; not eligible for § 3582(c)(2) reduction. |
| Does Freeman control the meaning of “based on” or “applicable guidelines” for (C) plea reductions? | Freeman governs the base guideline for reductions under § 3582(c)(2). | Amendment 759 overrides Freeman’s interpretation for this case. | No controlling effect; Amendment 759 clarifies that applicable guidelines are determined pre-departure. |
| Did the district court have jurisdiction to grant a sua sponte § 3582(c)(2) reduction? | Plea agreement and § 1B1.10 require considering the applicable guidelines pre-departure. | District court lacked jurisdiction to grant or sua sponte reduce; reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011) (addressed when (C) plea sentence is “based on” amended guidelines for § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2009) (clarified § 3582(c)(2) prerequisites and policy statements)
- United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2009) (jurisdictional review under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Pembrook, 609 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2010) (discussed pre/post-departure guideline ranges for applicability)
- United States v. Ware, 694 F.3d 527 (3d Cir. 2012) (interpreted Freeman’s scope and § 1B1.10 implications)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (Guidelines commentary generally authoritative)
- United States v. Baptist, 646 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam; treat as binding circuit precedent on retroactivity and amendments)