United States v. Smith
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19641
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Smith was indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over 1 kg cocaine base and over 100 g powder cocaine.
- He entered a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement agreeing to 180 months of imprisonment.
- The plea worksheet showed a Guidelines range of 168–210 months; the PSR showed 210–262 months after a four‑level enhancement.
- The district court accepted the plea and sentenced Smith to 180 months.
- After crack-cocaine amendments were retroactively applied, Smith moved for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction; the government argued his plea precluded such reduction and that Peveler barred relief.
- The district court denied the motion, concluding Smith’s sentence was within the amended range; Smith appealed seeking a reduction under Freeman v. United States.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea is categorically eligible for §3582(c)(2) relief. | Smith: plea is based on guidelines due to attached worksheet; Freeman controls. | Government: plea not based on guidelines; Peveler precludes modification. | Eligible under Freeman; remand for §3553(a) consideration. |
| Whether the district court properly determined the applicable Guideline range for §3582(c)(2) after amendments. | Freeman dictates the relevant range is that in the plea agreement. | District court may use the PSR range if not bound by the agreement. | Range is the plea‑agreement range; amendments thereafter apply to determine eligibility. |
| Whether the district court erred by treating the prior lower range as inapplicable and by denying relief based on the plea agreement. | The sentence is based on the Guidelines; reduction is allowed. | Plea agreement precludes modification under Peveler. | District court erred; case remanded for consideration of §3553(a) factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011) (eligibility under §3582(c)(2) when plea is based on Guidelines range)
- United States v. Peveler, 359 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2004) (Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea generally precludes modification absent agreement)
- United States v. Watkins, 625 F.3d 277 (6th Cir. 2010) (two-step process for §3582(c)(2) determinations)
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011) (supreme court decision cited for eligibility based on plea range)