United States v. Scottie Sanderson
690 F. App'x 388
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sanderson pleaded guilty in 2010 under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to two marijuana counts; parties agreed to consecutive 60-month sentences (total 120 months) and Sanderson waived appeals and collateral attacks.
- Indictment originally included two § 922(g)(1) firearm counts and four marijuana counts; plea dismissed other counts including ones carrying a 15-year mandatory minimum.
- Probation initially calculated the Guidelines using U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (drug guideline), yielding a 41–51 month range, but the court accepted the parties’ 11(c)(1)(C) agreement and imposed the 120-month term.
- After Amendment 782 (2014) reduced base offense levels under § 2D1.1, the probation office recalculated and found the career-offender guideline (U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1) controlled, yielding a 37–46 month range.
- Sanderson moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction; the district court denied relief, concluding the sentence was based on the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement rather than a Guidelines range.
- Sanderson appealed; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the 11(c)(1)(C) agreement did not base the term on a Guidelines range and so § 3582(c)(2) relief was unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sanderson waived the right to seek § 3582(c)(2) relief by plea waiver | Waiver ambiguous: § 3582(c) motion is not a collateral attack and waiver shouldn’t bar § 3582(c)(2) relief | Plea explicitly waived collateral attacks including § 3582(c); waiver is enforceable | Waiver language was unambiguous in prior Sixth Circuit decisions; but court also resolved denial on independent grounds |
| Whether a sentence under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) can be "based on" a Guidelines range for § 3582(c)(2) purposes | Sanderson argued Freeman concurrence is not controlling; his 11(c)(1)(C) sentence could be eligible if Guidelines subsequently lowered | Government: sentence not based on Guidelines because plea stated no U.S.S.G. calculation and did not reference a Guidelines range | Under Freeman (controlling in Sixth Circuit), an 11(c)(1)(C) sentence is eligible for § 3582(c)(2) only if the agreement expressly used a Guidelines range; Sanderson’s plea did not, so no relief |
| Applicability of Freeman's framework | Sanderson relied on other circuits (Davis, Epps) to reject Freeman concurring framework | Government relied on Sixth Circuit precedent applying Freeman concurring framework | Sixth Circuit is bound by its prior panel decisions applying Freeman concurring framework; Freeman’s narrower opinion controls here |
| Standard of review for eligibility under § 3582(c)(2) | — | — | Court reviews de novo and concluded Sanderson not eligible because sentence was not based on a lowered Guidelines range |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Calderon, 388 F.3d 197 (6th Cir. 2004) (defendant may waive rights by plea agreement)
- United States v. Fleming, 239 F.3d 761 (6th Cir. 2001) (waivers in plea agreements can include constitutional rights)
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (narrower opinion: 11(c)(1)(C) sentence is "based on" the agreement; concurring opinion limits § 3582(c)(2) eligibility to agreements that expressly use a Guidelines range)
- United States v. Perdue, 572 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 2009) (district court may modify sentence only as statute provides)
- United States v. Curry, 606 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) eligibility)
- United States v. McNeese, 819 F.3d 922 (6th Cir. 2016) (applying Freeman concurring framework to deny § 3582(c)(2) relief for 11(c)(1)(C) agreement that did not reference Guidelines)
- United States v. Riley, 726 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2013) (same)
- United States v. Smith, 658 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2011) (same framework application)
- United States v. Lanier, 201 F.3d 842 (6th Cir. 2000) (one panel cannot overrule another; only en banc can)