Case Information
*1 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: [*]
Ryan Powers, federal prisoner # 21662-078, is serving a 168-month sentence for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels in the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Citing Freeman v. United *2 Case: 15-41121 Document: 00513767287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2016
No. 15-41121
States , 564 U.S. 522, 530 (2011), Powers argues that the district court erred in finding him ineligible for a sentence reduction because he was sentenced pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.
Section 3582(c)(2) grants a district court the discretion to modify a defendant’s sentence if he “has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). However, a defendant sentenced pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement may be eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction only if “the agreement itself employs the particular Guideline sentencing range applicable to the charged offenses in establishing the term of imprisonment.” Freeman , 564 U.S. at 540 (Sotomayor, J., concurring).
Powers’s plea agreement does not call for him “to be sentenced within a particular Guidelines sentencing range;” nor provides “for a specific term of imprisonment . . . but also make[s] clear that the basis for the specified term [wa]s a Guidelines sentencing range applicable to the offence to which [he] pleaded guilty;” nor “explicitly employs a particular Guidelines sentencing range to establish a term of imprisonment.” See id. at 538-40. Thus, Powers’s Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence was not based on a sentencing range that was lowered by Amendment 782, and the district court had no authority to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2). See Freeman, 564 U.S. at 538-40; United States v. Benitez , 822 F.3d 807, 812 (5th Cir. 2016). Powers has not shown that the district court erred in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. [1]
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Powers’s motions for discovery and the production of transcripts are DENIED.
[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
[1] As the district court did not err in determining that Powers is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, we do not consider the parties’ arguments relating to the Government’s alternative assertion that Powers is ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on his status as a career offender. 2