United States v. Terry L. PevelerUnited States v. Terry L. Peveler
OPINION
Appellant Terry L. Peveler appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence under
A. Procedural History
On April 6, 1993 a federal grand jury in Owensboro, Kentucky returned an 11-count indictment against Peveler and three other co-defendants. Peveler was named in seven of the 11 counts, with five of these counts charging him with drug trafficking in violation of
The “
Peveler then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirmed the district court’s denial of Peveler’s motion.
United States v. Peveler,
Peveler then filed a
pro se
petition under
The magistrate judge conducted an evi-dentiary hearing, at which the government conceded Peveler’s actual innocence of the firearm charge in the superseding information. The hearing focused on whether Pe-veler had committed the other firearm charges in the original indictment, that is, whether Peveler used or carried a firearm in relation to drug-trafficking crimes on November 12, 1992, and December 18, 1992. After the hearing, the magistrate judge recommended that Peveler’s request for relief from his conviction and sentence on the firearm count in the superseding information be denied. The district court overruled Peveler’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied a certificate of appealability. However, we granted a certificate of appeala-bility, but affirmed the district court’s decision.
On August 3, 2001, Peveler filed a motion to modify his sentence pursuant to
B. Factual Background
In September 1992, the Kentucky State Police and the police department in Liver-more, Kentucky, began investigating Pe-veler and his codefendants for suspected drug trafficking. This investigation commenced after a confidential source informed both law enforcement agencies that Peveler was using and selling illegal drugs in Western Kentucky.
About the time of the investigation of Peveler, Livermore Police Chief Charles Cobb arrested Larry Blanford for attempted theft of a motorcycle. Blanford agreed to serve as a confidential informant, and to purchase drugs from Peveler in exchange for cash payments and the dismissal of his theft charge.
Pursuant to this arrangement, Blanford informed Cobb and Kentucky State Police Detective Charles Brown that he purchased marijuana from Peveler on November 12, 1992, and again on December 18, 1992, and that he saw Peveler weigh and package various quantities of cocaine on January 24, 1993. Blanford reported seeing firearms openly displayed in the rooms of Peveler’s trailer home where the marijuana sales took place in 1992 -and further stated that he saw firearms in the closet of Peveler’s bedroom where the cocaine packaging occurred in 1993. Based on the information provided by Blanford, warrants were issued to arrest Peveler and to search his trailer. The search resulted in the recovery of 1.5 pounds of cocaine, 12 pounds of marijuana, and four firearms.
C. The Plea Agreement
Peveler eventually entered into a plea agreement that required Peveler to plead guilty to a six-count superseding information with the same five drug-trafficking counts included in the original indictment, but with only one count of violating
The plea agreement was under then
Pursuant to
4. Defendant understands that the charge to which he will plead guilty carries a combined maximum term of imprisonment of 65 years, a combined maximum fine of three million dollars, and a 4 year term of supervised released. Defendant understands that an additional term of imprisonment may be ordered if the terms of the supervised released are violated, as explained in18 U.S.C. § 3583 . There is not a mutual mistake here, but rather a retroactive application of a guideline.
* * *
10. At the time of sentencing, the United States will recommend a sentence of imprisonment at the low end of the applicable GuidelineRange, but not less than any mandatory minimum term of imprisonment required by law.
11. Both parties have independently reviewed the Sentencing Guidelines
Base Offense Level Organizer or leader Adjusted Based Offense level Possession of Weapon TOTAL OFFENSE LEVEL 26 § 2Dl.l(c)(9) + 2 § 3B 1.1(c) ■28 + 2 § 2Dl.l(b)(2) 30
B. The Criminal History of the Defendant shall be determined upon completion of the presentence investigation, pursuant toFed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(2) .
12. If the Court refuses to accept this agreement and impose sentence in accordance with its terms according to the United States’ motion pursuant toFed.R.Crim.P. 119(e)(1)(C) , this Agreement will become null and void and neither party shall be bound thereto, and Defendant will be allowed to withdraw the plea of guilty.
* * *
14. Defendant agrees that the disposition provided within this Agreement is fair, taking into account all aggravating and mitigating factors. Defendant states that he has informed the United States Attorney’s Office and the Probation Officer, either directly or through his attorney, of all mitigating factors. Defendant will not oppose imposition of a sentence incorporating the disposition provided for within this Agreement, nor argue for any other sentence. applicable in this case, and in the . best judgment and belief, conclude as follows:
A. The Applicable Offense Level should be determined as follows:
(Joint Appendix at 108-09, 112-113) (emphasis added). The district court accepted the parties’ guideline calculations and imposed the sentence of 181 months consistent with the plea agreement.
During oral argument, Peveler conceded that he does not want to set aside his plea agreement, given that to do so would subject him to prosecutions on two additional § 924(c) firearm charges. In any event, as discussed infra, this Court would lack the authority to set aside the plea agreement under § 3582(c).
D. Analysis
This Court reviews a district court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to modify under
The statutory authority for Peveler’s sentence modification request is
The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposedexcept ... in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant ... after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) ... if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
(Emphasis added.)
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed—
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the offense
(5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission ...
In a policy statement, the United States Sentencing Commission addressed the district court’s exercise of its discretion on a
In determining whether, and to what extent, a reduction in the term of imprisonment is warranted for a defendant eligible for consideration under18 U.S.C., § 3582(c)(2) , the court should consider the term of imprisonment that it would have imposed had the amendments) to the guidelines listed in subsection (c) been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced ...
Application note 2 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.
Peveler argues that he is entitled to reduction of his sentence due to the Sentencing Commission’s retroactive application of Amendment 599 to the sentencing guidelines set forth in revised § 1B1.10 of the U.S.S.G., as follows:
Weapon Enhancement. If a sentence under this guideline is imposed in conjunction with a sentence for an underlying offense, do not apply any specific offense characteristic for possession, brandishing, use, or discharge of an explosive or firearm when determining the sentence for the underlying offense. A sentence under this guideline accounts for any explosive or weapon enhancement for the underlying offense of conviction, including any such enhancement that would apply based on conduct for which the defendant is accountable under § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct). Do not apply any weapon enhancement in the guideline for the underlying offense, for example. If (A) a co-defendant, as part of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, possessed a firearm different from the one for which the defendant was convicted under18 U.S.C. § 924(c) ; or (B) in an ongoing drug trafficking offense, the defendant possessed a firearm other than the one for which the defendant was convicted under18 U.S.C. § 924(c) . However, if a defendant is convicted of two armed back robberies, but is convicted under18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in connection with only one of the robberies, a weapon enhancement would apply to the bank robbery which was not the basis for the18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction.
(Emphasis added.)
Eighteen U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) “empowers the District Court to modify the prisoner’s sentence that would otherwise be final.”
United States v. Williams,
Generally, “[o]nce the district court has accepted a plea agreement, [this Court has] traditionally regarded the agreement as a type of contract, and ... [has] analyzed the respective obligations of the prosecution and the defendant under general principles of contract law.”
United States v. Skidmore,
In
United States v. Weaver,
Reformation of a written agreement is warranted only when the evidence demonstrates that the parties’ mutual mistake resulted in a written document which does, not accurately reflect the terms of their agreement. Consequently, reformation is generally, without more, not an available remedy where the evidence demonstrates mistake or change of mind of only one of the contracting parties.
Id.
at 1472 (citations omitted). In
dicta,
the First Circuit suggested that modification of a plea agreement under a
Yet, a rule of criminal procedure can limit a court’s authority.
United States v. Robinson,
At the time of Peveler’s 1994 plea agreement, former
Even under the pre-1999 version of former
In Kemper this court recognized that Holman, which was decided before the Sentencing Guidelines, had been overruled by “the 1987 amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the implementation of the ... Guidelines.” Id. at 35. A sentencing judge could no longer be forced to abide by an agreed to sentence where that sentence did not conform to the Guidelines, as that would eviscerate their purpose.
The Kemper court explained that if a plea agreement has been accepted by the court before the presentence report has been conducted, Guidelines § 6Bl.l(c) describes the proper procedure:
The court shall defer its decision to accept or reject any nonbinding recommendation pursuant toRule 11(c)(1)(B) and the court’s decision to accept or reject any plea agreement pursuant toRules 11(e)(1)(A) and 11(e)(1)(C) until there has been an opportunity to consider the presentence report.
Guideline § 6B1.1 as interpreted by Kemper, makes contingent upon its review of the presentence report. For, “only if the court is satisfied ... that the contemplated sentence is within the guidelines” can it accept an agreement requiring imposition of a specific sentence. Kemper,908 F.2d at 36-37 .
Upon review of the presentence report, if the sentencing court determines that there was an error in the calculating the agreed-upon sentence, it must reject the plea. Id.; U.S.S.G. § 6B1.3. The court must then “afford the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the defendant’s guilty plea.” U.S.S.G. § 6B1.3.
Id. at 108-09.
With the 1999 amendments to
(e) Plea Agreement Procedure.
(1) In General. An attorney for the government and the defendant’s attorney, or the defendant when proceeding pro se, may discuss and reach a plea agreement. The court must not participate in these discussions. If the defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere to either a charged offense or a lesser or related offense, the plea agreement mayspecify that an attorney for the government will:
* * *
(C) agree that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate disposition of the case, or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply (such a recommendation or request binds the court once the court accepts the plea agreement ).
(Emphasis added.) The underscored language was added in the 1999 amendments to
Albeit in unpublished decisions, we have held that in light of the 1999 amendments, upon “accepting the [
In another unpublished decision concerning a
Here, at the time of sentencing, the district court applied the parties’ calculations of the relevant guidelines to Peveler’s plea agreement. Yet, this Court has not addressed whether a district court has the authority to modify of a sentence under a
The Seventh and Tenth Circuits have held that retroactive amendments to the sentencing guidelines provide legally insufficient basis on which to modify a sentence under a-
The government is correct in its assertion that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review aRule 11(e)(1)(C) sentence where a prisoner claims that hisRule 11(e)(1)(C) sentence is greater than the sentence range specified in the applicable guidelines. See18 U.S.C. § 3742(C)(1) ; United States v. Denogean,79 F.3d 1010 , 1013-14 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied,519 U.S. 856 ,117 S.Ct. 154 ,136 L.Ed.2d 99 (1996); United States v. Prieto-Duran,39 F.3d 1119 , 1120 (10th Cir.1994). However, this is not a direct appeal of Mr. Trujeque’s sentence, nor is it a collateral attack under28 U.S.C. § 2255 . Rather, Mr. Trueque has filed motion under18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . And the viability of his motion depends entirely upon that statute. Our appellate jurisdiction over final decision extends as far as to consider the district court’s denial of Mr. Tru-jeque’s§ 3582(c)(2) motion.
In
United States v. Hemminger,
After accepting the agreement, the court “is not free to revisit the plea agreement simply because, for whatever reason, the defendant later comes back to the court for resentencing.” United States v. Ritsema,89 F.3d 392 , 399 (7th Cir.1996). See also United States v. Barnes,83 F.3d 934 , 938 (7th Cir.1996). The sentence, under aRule 11(e)(1)(C) plea rests on the parties’ agreement, not on the calculation under the Sentencing Guidelines.
Of course, a defendant is entitled to contest a plea underRule 11(e)(1)(C) on the same grounds that any other plea may be challenged — that it was involuntary, that is was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, that the indictment does not state an offense, and so on. But Hemminger does not want to withdraw his plea and go to trial; he does not contend that the plea is infirm on any legal or factual ground; instead he wants to keep the benefits of the plea while receiving a lower sentence. That possibility is one he bargained away in 1990. Having received the benefits of his agreement, Hemminger must accept the portions favorable of the prosecutor.
Id. at *1. Hemminger differs only in that Peveler’s plea agreement provided that the district court would determine what the guideline calculation “should be.”
Assuming that Peveler is correct in his interpretation of Amendment 599 as applied to his sentence
3
, we defer to the express language in the 1999 amendments to the former
For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order.
Notes
. In 2002, Fed. R.Crim. R. 11 was amended and the current version of
. More recent decisions in other circuits question
Fields,
citing the 1999 amendments to
. There is authority to support Peveler's contention that Amendment 599 precludes an enhancement above the guideline calculation where a Section 924(c) conviction is among the related conduct leading to the calculation of the guidelines. See
United States v. Aquino,
. This conclusion should not be construed as a blanket bar to all such motions for relief.