Facts of the Case
Erik Hughes pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses and entered into a plea agreement with the government under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The district court accepted the agreement and sentenced Hughes accordingly. Hughes then sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which permits defendants who have been “sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” The district court relied on Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion in Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) in determining that Hughes was ineligible for a sentence reduction because he was not sentenced “based on a sentencing range,” but on a plea agreement. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding.
Question
Is an inmate who enters into a plea bargain under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) (which specifies that an attorney for the government will agree that a specific sentence is appropriate) eligible for a sentence reduction if the sentencing guidelines are changed subsequent to his sentencing?
Conclusion
In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that a sentence imposed pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) (“Type C”) plea bargain is “based on” the defendant’s Federal Sentencing Guidelines range as long as that range was a component of the framework the court used in imposing the sentence or accepting the plea bargain, meaning that in this case, Erik Hughes could seek a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
The Court explained that a central purpose of the Guidelines is uniformity in sentencing. However, in the wake of the Court’s 4-1-4 decision in Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011), which considered the question of a defendant’s eligibility for a reduced sentence under § 3582(c)(2) after entering into a Type C agreement, some circuits followed the plurality opinion while others followed Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence, depending on how they applied Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977).
In seeking to resolve this split in authority, the Court stated that a district court imposes a sentence that is “based on” the Guidelines range if the range was part of the basis the court used in exercising its discretion to impose a sentence. District courts are required to use the Guidelines range as a starting point for calculating sentences in every case, including cases involving Type C agreements. As such, in most cases, sentences imposed pursuant to Type C agreements are “based on” the defendant’s guidelines range. Therefore, when the Sentencing Commission lowers the range for a particular offense, unless there is a clear showing that the court would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the Guidelines range, a defendant who has entered into a Type C agreement related to that offense will generally be eligible for a reduction in sentence under § 3582(c)(2). The Court stated that this interpretation, as a systemic, structural matter, best supported the sentencing system Congress put into place.
Pursuant to this reasoning and in light of the fact that the Guidelines range was a basis for Hughes’ sentence, the Court held that he was eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2) given that the range had been lowered
The Court declined to decide the question of how Marks should properly apply.
Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion in which she explained that she was joining the majority in full in the instant case in order to help resolve the confusion that had arisen in the aftermath of Freeman, but stated that she still believed that her concurrence in Freeman set forth the most convincing application of § 3582(c)(2)’s text.
Justice Roberts authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Alito and Thomas joined.