United States v. Roland Long
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12495
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Long is serving a 144-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine base; plea agreement expressly set a 144-month sentence under Rule 11(c)(1)(C); the agreement did not reveal his Guidelines range or the specific adjustments/history category; retroactive Guideline amendments lowered cocaine base ranges; the probation office and district court erred by treating Long as a career offender and misapplying Rule 11(c)(1)(C); Long moved for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction; the district court denied based on mistaken basis and lack of a Guideline-range connection to the sentence.
- Long’s plea agreement lacked an express connection to a calculable Guidelines range; the district court treated the agreement as if governed by non-binding Rule 11(c)(1)(B) and relied on inaccurate PSIR data; the lack of explicit range and missing adjustments/history precluded a finding that the sentence was “based on” a Guideline range.
- The district court’s mischaracterization of the plea and reliance on erroneous facts did not create eligibility for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction; Long remains ineligible under controlling Third-party precedents.
- The court found no reversible error in the district court’s reasoning because § 3582(c)(2) requires eligibility, which Long does not have under Johnson and Freeman principles.
- The ruling affirms denial of a § 3582(c)(2) reduction for Long.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Long is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Long argues the crack-cocaine guideline changes apply to reduce his term | Long is not entitled to a reduction under 3582(c)(2) despite eligibility | Ineligible under 3582(c)(2) |
| Whether the plea agreement or lack of explicit Guideline range affects eligibility | Agreement binds the court but does not show a Guideline range connection | No express Guideline-range basis in the agreement, so no reduction | No basis to connect sentence to a Guideline range; ineligible |
Key Cases Cited
- Willie Johnson, 703 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2013) (§ 3582(c)(2) not entitlement to reduced sentence; lenity principle)
- Shawn Johnson, 697 F.3d 1190 (8th Cir. 2012) (no reduction where plea lacks express Guideline-range basis)
- Scurlark, 560 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of legal question on § 3582(c)(2))
- Browne, 698 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 2012) (Rule 11(c)(1)(C) governs plea terms and range applicability)