United States v. Tyrone Davis
776 F.3d 1088
9th Cir.2015Background
- Davis was convicted in 2005 on conspiracy, distribution, and possession with intent to distribute crack and sentenced to 18 years after a plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).
- The sentence was affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2010, the Sentencing Commission lowered crack cocaine guidelines retroactively; Davis sought a retroactive reduction.
- The district court declined jurisdiction to modify Davis's sentence, holding it was not based on the Guidelines.
- The court used Austin to determine jurisdiction, concluding Davis’s sentence was based on the 11(c)(1)(C) agreement.
- The concurrence argues that Austin was wrongly decided and would adopt Epps’ approach to § 3582(c)(2) relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was 'based on' the 11(c)(1)(C) agreement. | Davis (the defendant) contends it was not strictly based on the Guidelines as parties sought a specific agreement. | The government (Davis) argues district court discretion anchored by the agreement controls, limiting the reduction. | No; under Austin, not based on Guidelines; affirmed. |
| Whether Freeman's framework allows § 3582(c)(2) relief for 11(c)(1)(C) plea sentences. | Sotomayor's view could permit relief when guidelines later lower the range. | Plurality view supports relief only if the sentence is grounded in the Guidelines range. | Not applicable to grant relief under the agreement; Austin controls. |
| Whether the district court properly resolved the governing framework after Marks and Austin. | Sotomayor's concurrence should control under Marks, allowing relief. | Austin governs; the court correctly found no basis for relief. | Affirmed under Austin. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (Supreme Court, 2011) (plurality and concurring opinions; split on § 3582(c)(2) relief)
- United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2012) (controls in this circuit on focus of § 3582(c)(2) relief under 11(c)(1)(C))
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (Supreme Court, 1977) (fractured opinions; 'narrowest grounds' test for Supreme Court plurality)
- United States v. Epps, 707 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (rejects Sotomayor-centric approach; supports focus on district court's reasons)