United States v. Tremell Armstead

895 F.3d 832

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 19, 2018
• Docket: 17-30439
• Status: Published

Opinion

FORTUNATO P. BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:

Tremell Armstead ("Armstead") appealed 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 of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Relying on our precedent, this Court affirmed the district court's judgment. United States v. Armstead, 706 F. App'x 219 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807 , 810 (5th Cir. 2016) ). The Supreme Court granted Armstead's petition for writ of certiorari and vacated our judgment and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of Hughes v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1765 , --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018).

In Benitez , the defendant had entered into a plea agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), and the parties had stipulated that 63 months was an appropriate sentence. 822 F.3d at 809 . Relying on Justice Sotomayor's concurring opinion in Freeman v. United States , this Court noted that Benitez's plea agreement did not: (1) provide for him to be sentenced within a particular guideline sentencing range; (2) provide for a specific term of imprisonment based on a guidelines sentencing range relevant to the subject offense; or (3) expressly use a particular guideline sentencing range to determine the sentence. Id. at 812 (citing Freeman v. U.S. , 564 U.S. 522 , 131 S.Ct. 2685 , 2697-98, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) ). We held that because Benitez's sentence was not based on the quantity of drugs or the advisory guideline range, the district court had no authority to reduce the sentence under § 3582(c)(2). Id.

*834 In Hughes , the Supreme Court abrogated our holding in Benitez . 138 S.Ct. 1765 . The Supreme Court explained that a sentence imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c) or "Type-C" plea agreement was typically based on the sentencing guideline range because the court must first evaluate the stipulated sentence in light of the defendant's sentencing guideline range. Id. at 1775-76 . The Court held that 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." Id. at 1775 .

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that Armstead entered into a "Type-C" agreement in which the parties agreed that the appropriate term of imprisonment was 180 months. At the sentencing hearing, the district court referred to the applicable guideline range that had been calculated by the probation officer and noted that it was lower than the stipulated sentence of 180 months. We conclude that Armstead's sentence was "based on" his guideline range because it was part of the framework the court relied upon in imposing his sentence. Moreover, subsequent to Armstead's sentencing hearing, Amendment 782 had the effect of lowering Armstead's guideline range, rendering him eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). However, we express no opinion as to whether the district court should exercise its discretion to reduce Armstead's sentence.

For the above reasons, we VACATE and REMAND for resentencing consistent with our opinion.