United States District Court, M.D. Alabama
OPINION AND ORDER
MYRON
H. THOMPSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Defendant
Kelvin Dewayne Anderson pleaded guilty to one count of
conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846. He was sentenced to 135 months of imprisonment
and five years of supervised release. The question before the
court is whether his sentence should be reduced based on
Amendments 782 and 788 to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines. Anderson seeks a reduction to 108 months. For the
reasons that follow, the court holds that Anderson is
eligible for a reduction, but to only 120 months, not 108
months.
I. The
parties submitted and the court accepted a Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement (“Type-C
agreement”), which permits the parties to “agree
that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the
appropriate disposition of the case” and “binds
the court once the court accepts the plea agreement.”
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. See Plea Agreement (doc. no.
241) at 2; Court Minutes (doc. no. 393).
In the
Type-C agreement, the parties agreed to a possible total
offense level of 31. To calculate this total offense level,
the parties started with an original base offense level of 32
pursuant to United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines
Manual § 2D1.1(c)(4) (Nov. 2011) (USSG) and added a
two-level enhancement pursuant to USSG § 3C1.2 due to
reckless endangerment during flight from law enforcement.
See Plea Agreement (doc. no. 241) at 3. They also
agreed, pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1, to a three-level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility if Anderson
“does not obstruct justice or otherwise fail to accept
responsibility.” Id. at 2-3. With his criminal
history of III and with a three-level reduction pursuant to
Guideline 3E1.1, Anderson's Guidelines range would be 135
to 168 months. The parties agreed that a sentence of
imprisonment of 135 months, which fell within the Guidelines
range, was “appropriate.” Id. at 3. The
government also left open the option of moving at sentencing
for a downward departure pursuant to USSG § 5K1.1 and 18
U.S.C. § 3553(e) to reflect Anderson's substantial
assistance. See id.
During
the sentencing hearing, the court calculated Anderson's
Guidelines sentence. In calculating the total offense level,
the court, while viewing the evidence independently,
essentially mimed the calculations in the plea agreement. It
began with a base offense level of 32 and added a two-level
enhancement pursuant to USSG § 3C1.2 due to reckless
endangerment during flight from law enforcement. The court
then granted the government's motion for a three-level
downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant
to USSG §§ 3E1.1(a) and (b). The government did not
move at sentencing for a departure based on substantial
assistance. After the enhancement and downward adjustment,
Anderson's total offense level was 31. See
Sentencing Tr. (doc. no. 626) at 29; see also
Statement of Reasons (doc. no. 407) at 1. Anderson's
criminal history category was III. The applicable Guidelines
range was 135 to 168 months. See Sentencing Tr.
(doc. no. 626) at 29.
At
sentencing, the government advocated for a
bottom-of-the-guidelines range, which was now 135 months.
See Id. at 24. The court did not discuss the
ten-year mandatory minimum when calculating Anderson's
sentence. Rather, the government requested and the court
imposed a 135-month sentence based on the Guidelines range.
See Id. at 29. The 135-month sentence was therefore
the direct product of a Guidelines-driven range.
II.
With
Amendment 782 in 2014, the United States Sentencing
Commission revised the Sentencing Guidelines applicable to
the drug-trafficking offense for which this court sentenced
Anderson. The Commission simultaneously promulgated Amendment
788, which made Amendment 782 retroactive. This court
established a Retroactivity Screening Panel to determine
whether defendants such as Anderson might be eligible for a
sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Anderson's case was submitted for review, but the Panel
was unable to reach a unanimous recommendation due to a
disagreement over the applicable law.
Anderson
is eligible for a sentence reduction now if he was sentenced
“based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis
added). The court finds that Anderson's sentence was
“based on” a sentencing range later lowered by
the Sentencing Commission.
According
to Hughes v. United States, “a sentence
imposed pursuant to a Type-C agreement is ‘based
on' the defendant's Guidelines range so long as that
range was part of the framework the district court relied on
in imposing the sentence or accepting the agreement.”
138 S.Ct. 1765, 1775 (2018). Under this approach, as a
“general rule [], in most cases, a defendant's
sentence will be ‘based on' his Guidelines, ”
because “in the usual case the court's acceptance
of a Type-C agreement and the sentence to be imposed pursuant
to that agreement are ‘based on' the
defendant's Guidelines range.” Id. at
1776. Indeed, because “the Guidelines are a district
court's starting point, [] when the Commission lowers a
defendant's Guidelines range the defendant will be
eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2) absent clear
demonstration, based on the record as a whole, that the court
would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the
Guidelines.” Id.
Anderson
has surmounted the Hughes hurdle. As explained
earlier, the parties in arriving at their agreed-upon
sentence, and the court in deciding whether to accept that
sentence, went through identical Guidelines calculations and
reached the same result. The parties and the court added a
two-level enhancement and then departed downward from the
initial Guidelines range by three offense levels to arrive at
a lower Guidelines range of 135 to 168 months. The court then
sentenced Anderson, as per the government's request, to a
Guidelines sentence of 135 months. See
Sentencing Tr. (doc. no. 626) at 24. That Anderson's
sentence was based on, that is, within, a Guidelines range
that was “part of the framework the district court
relied on in imposing the sentence or accepting the
agreement, ” Hughes, 138 S.Ct. at 1775, is
incontestable.
However,
the Hughes hurdle is not the only hurdle Anderson
must surmount.
III.
The
second hurdle is determining whether Anderson was sentenced
based on the Guidelines range even though he was subject to a
mandatory-minimum sentence of ten years. In Koons v.
United States, the Supreme Court held that, where five
defendants were subject to mandatory-minimum sentences that
exceeded their otherwise-applicable Guidelines ranges, and
where the district court “scrapped the ranges in favor
of the mandatory minimums and never considered the ranges
again, ” that the sentences were not “based
on” the otherwise-applicable Guidelines ranges. 138
S.Ct. 1783, 1786 (2018). Specifically, the sentencing court
in Koons stated that the mandatory minimums had
“discarded” or “scrapped” the initial
Guidelines range; framed the entire sentencing discussion in
terms of the appropriate percentage of ...