United States v. Webster, 689 F. App'x 616

In July 2010 Webster was charged with drug and firearms offenses; he possessed over 50 grams of crack, which then triggered a 10‑year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii).
Webster pleaded guilty under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) to a drug‑conspiracy count and a firearms count and agreed to a 180‑month sentence plus five years supervised release.
The Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) later reduced penalties for crack offenses; Webster moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence consistent with the FSA.
The district court dismissed the § 3582(c)(2) motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction because Webster’s sentence was not “based on” the Sentencing Guidelines (the plea agreement expressly disclaimed Guideline use).
Webster appealed; the Tenth Circuit reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo and the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion, and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant sentenced pursuant to a binding plea agreement that disclaims Guideline use is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction after a Guidelines amendment (FSA)	Webster: § 3582(c)(2) reduction should apply so his sentence conforms to the FSA’s reduced penalties	Government/District: No jurisdiction because sentence was not "based on" the Guidelines; plea agreement disclaimed Guidelines	Court: Affirmed dismissal — plea agreement did not use the Guidelines, so § 3582(c)(2) relief is unavailable (following Freeman concurrence and Graham)

Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (addresses FSA’s application to pre‑Act offenders)
Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (Sotomayor concurrence limiting § 3582(c)(2) relief to sentences based on Guidelines)
United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2013) (applies Freeman in the Tenth Circuit)
United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) rulings)