United States v. Tustuji Wakauwn
698 F. App'x 543
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Tustuji Matu Wakauwn pleaded guilty under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement recommending a 100‑month sentence for methamphetamine offenses.
- The plea agreement required the district court to determine the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range at sentencing and stated facts yielding a base offense level of 26 and an acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction.
- At sentencing the district court calculated a total offense level of 23 and a Guidelines range of 92–115 months and imposed the recommended 100‑month term, calling it "just."
- Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines later retroactively lowered the relevant drug Guidelines range (to a post‑Amendment range that would have been lower than the imposed term).
- Wakauwn moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782; the district court denied relief, holding the sentence was ineligible because it was not "based on" the Guidelines but on the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement and § 3553(a) factors.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the plea‑agreement sentence was "based on" the Guidelines and thus eligible for § 3582(c)(2) consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence is eligible for reduction under § 3582(c)(2) when the district court relied on a Guidelines range later lowered by a retroactive amendment | Wakauwn: the court’s acceptance of the plea and imposition of the recommended term was "based on" the Guidelines range, so § 3582(c)(2) relief is available | Government/District Court: the sentence was not "based on" the Guidelines but on the plea agreement and § 3553(a) factors, so it was ineligible | Reversed: sentence was "based on" the Guidelines; eligible for § 3582(c)(2) and remand for step two analysis |
| Standard of review for whether a sentence is "based on" the Guidelines for § 3582(c)(2) purposes | Wakauwn: district court’s determination is subject to de novo review | Court/Government: (implied) factual discretion by district court | Court held such eligibility determinations are reviewed de novo |
| Whether consideration of § 3553(a) factors at sentencing precludes § 3582(c)(2) relief | Wakauwn: mandatory consideration of § 3553(a) does not negate that the Guidelines influenced acceptance and imposition of the plea | Government/District Court: reliance on § 3553(a) shows the Guidelines were not the basis | Court: § 3553(a) consideration does not bar eligibility where the district court’s decision to accept the plea was based on a Guidelines calculation |
| Whether a district court’s statement of reasons focusing on non‑Guidelines factors can make a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence ineligible | Wakauwn: focusing on § 3553(a) factors is normal and does not show the Guidelines were disregarded | Government/District Court: emphasis on § 3553(a) demonstrates the sentence was not "based on" the Guidelines | Court: emphasis on § 3553(a) is insufficient; eligibility depends on whether the decision to accept the plea and impose the sentence was based on the Guidelines calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (explains two‑step § 3582(c)(2) framework and eligibility test)
- Davis v. United States, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. en banc) (holds Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea sentences can be § 3582(c)(2) eligible when the court’s acceptance was based on the Guidelines)
- Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (plurality) (discusses when a "since‑rejected Guideline" factor renders a defendant eligible for reduction)
- United States v. Spears, 824 F.3d 908 (9th Cir.) (discusses jurisdictional implications of a district court finding ineligibility at step one)
- United States v. Rodriguez‑Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir.) (distinguishes cases where a Guidelines calculation was disregarded due to a statutory mandatory minimum)