United States v. Tiffany Taber, 643 F. App'x 452

Tiffany Taber, a federal prisoner, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance and was sentenced to 97 months under a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.
The plea agreement contained an explicit waiver: Taber gave up the right "to seek any future reduction in her sentence (e.g., based on a change in sentencing guidelines or statutory law)."
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines (effective Nov. 1, 2014) retroactively lowered most drug-related base offense levels by two levels, and § 3582(c)(2) allows sentence reductions when the Sentencing Commission later lowers the guideline range.
Taber, pro se, moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782.
The district court denied the motion, concluding the plea-waiver barred relief; the court also noted Taber’s sentence was imposed pursuant to the binding plea agreement and was not derived from a Guidelines range.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion because Taber’s sentence was not based on the Guidelines and thus § 3582(c)(2) did not apply (and the waiver independently barred relief).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Taber can obtain a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on Amendment 782	Taber argued Amendment 782 lowers her applicable guideline range, entitling her to a reduction	Government argued the sentence was imposed under a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement and not "based on" the Guidelines	Held: § 3582(c)(2) reduction is inappropriate because Taber’s sentence was not based on the Guidelines (it was a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreed term)
Whether the plea-waiver bars Taber’s § 3582(c)(2) motion	Taber sought relief despite the waiver	Government relied on the explicit waiver of future reductions in the plea agreement	Held: District court permissibly relied on the waiver as a separate ground to deny relief (affirmed)
Standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) denials	Taber would seek de novo or more favorable review	Government relies on abuse-of-discretion standard for § 3582(c)(2) denials	Held: Appellate review is abuse of discretion for § 3582(c)(2) denial; Guideline interpretation is reviewed de novo
Whether court may affirm on any record-supported basis	Taber argued specific error in denial	Government argued appellate court may affirm on any correct ground supported by record	Held: Court may affirm on any basis supported by the record; it did so here

United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) and guideline interpretation)
Sojourner T. v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27 (5th Cir. 1992) (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the record)
Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011) (distinguishing sentences imposed under binding plea agreements from guideline-based sentences)
United States v. Williams, 609 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2010) (treatment of Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreed sentences in the context of guideline-based relief)
United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2009) (principles regarding § 3582(c)(2) sentence reductions)