UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Criminal Action No. 06-78 (RWR) ) ALPHONSO WALKER, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Alphonso Walker pled guilty under a Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to possessing with
intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and unlawfully using, carrying, and
possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Walker moved for a sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in light of amendments to
the United States Sentencing Guidelines that lowered the base
offense levels for offenses involving crack cocaine. See U.S.
SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL supp. app. C, amend. 706 (2010) (effective
Nov. 1, 2007); id. § 1B1.10 (listing 706 among those amendments
with retroactive effect). Because the plea agreement does not
indicate the parties’ intent to base the agreed-upon sentence on a
particular Guidelines range subsequently lowered by the Sentencing
Commission, sentence reduction is precluded here and Walker’s
motion will be denied. - 2 - BACKGROUND
Walker’s plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) proposed a
stipulated term of 78 months incarceration. The agreement refers
to the Guidelines in stating Walker’s “understand[ing] that if the
Court rejects the parties’ recommendation for an appropriate
sentence . . . and [Walker] does not withdraw his plea, [Walker]
will be sentenced according to Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 3553(a) and 3553(c) through (f), upon consideration of
the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Sentencing
Guidelines”), which will apply to determine [Walker’s] guideline
range.” (Plea agreement ¶ 1.)
I expressly considered the Guidelines range, among other
factors, in determining whether to accept the parties’ proposed
sentence. Sentencing Tr. 8:2-14, Sep. 5, 2006. I accepted the
plea agreement and sentenced Walker to a term of 60 months for
unlawfully using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during a drug
trafficking offense, which represents the statutory minimum for
that offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), and 18 months to run
consecutively for possessing with intent to distribute crack
cocaine.
A defendant is eligible for sentence reduction where he is
“sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range
that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.”
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Walker argues that he is eligible because - 3 - his sentence was at least partially based on a subsequently
lowered sentencing range. The government argues the lowered range
does not apply to Walker because he was sentenced to a stipulated
term as provided in the plea agreement, not to a term based on the
Guidelines.
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court recently considered whether a defendant who
entered and was sentenced under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea may be
eligible for sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based on a
retroactive guideline amendment. See Freeman v. United States,
131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011). Justice Kennedy, in announcing the
judgment of the Court in a plurality opinion, said that the
Sentencing Guidelines “provide a framework or starting point – a
basis, in the commonsense meaning of the term – for the judge’s
exercise of discretion” in accepting or rejecting a plea
agreement. Id. at 2692. The plurality concluded that a sentence
under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea can be “based on” the Sentencing
Guidelines, and thus subject to potential reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2), when the district judge’s decision to accept the
plea and impose the sentence is informed, as it often is, by those
guidelines. See id. at 2695.
Justice Sotomayor concurred with the plurality that relief
under § 3582(c)(2) may be available to defendants sentenced under
Rule 11(c)(1)(C), but only for that particular subset of - 4 - defendants who entered and were sentenced under a plea agreement
that indicates the parties’ intent to base the agreed-upon
sentence on a particular Guidelines range subsequently lowered by
the Sentencing Commission. See id. at 2698 & n.5. The concurring
Justice would therefore require more than mere demonstration of
the district judge’s own consideration of the Sentencing
Guidelines in the course of imposing a sentence. See id. at 2696.
Her higher threshold, then, is the controlling standard that
Walker must meet in order to be eligible for a § 3582(c)(2)
sentence reduction.
Walker’s Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement does not indicate an
intent to base the agreed-upon term of imprisonment on a
particular Sentencing Guidelines range. The plea agreement states
that “[Walker] and the Government agree that a sentence of
seventy-eight months is the appropriate sentence for the offenses
to which [Walker] is pleading guilty.” (Plea agreement ¶ 2.)
However, it does not explain how that term was determined or
indicate any reliance on the Guidelines for the determination.
See Freeman, 131 S. Ct. at 2698 n.5 (“If a (C) agreement does not
indicate the parties’ intent to base the term of imprisonment on a
particular Guidelines range subsequently lowered by the
Commission, then § 3582(c)(2) simply does not apply.”) (Sotomayor,
J., concurring). Nor does the acknowledgment in the plea
agreement that the Guidelines will be considered in fashioning a - 5 - sentence if the recommended sentence is rejected suffice to make
Walker eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2). See Freeman, 131
S. Ct. at 2697 (remarking that “the mere fact that the parties to
a (C) agreement may have considered the Guidelines in the course
of their negotiations does not empower the court under
§ 3582(c)(2) to reduce the term of imprisonment they ultimately
agreed upon”) (Sotomayor, J., concurring). Finally, under Justice
Sotomayor’s controlling concurrence, the fact that I considered
the Guidelines range in deciding whether to accept the plea
agreement carries no weight in the analysis. See Freeman, 131 S.
Ct. at 2696-97 (declining to conclude that district judge is
empowered “to revisit a prior sentence to whatever extent the
sentencing range in question was a relevant part of the analytic
framework the judge used to determine the sentence or to approve
the agreement”) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (internal quotations
omitted). Walker is therefore ineligible for relief.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Because the Freeman decision resulted in a divided majority,
the guiding principles to be applied to motions under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) regarding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) pleas may be subject to
further elucidation. At present, and in the absence of additional
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Criminal Action No. 06-78 (RWR) ) ALPHONSO WALKER, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Alphonso Walker pled guilty under a Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to possessing with
intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and unlawfully using, carrying, and
possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Walker moved for a sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in light of amendments to
the United States Sentencing Guidelines that lowered the base
offense levels for offenses involving crack cocaine. See U.S.
SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL supp. app. C, amend. 706 (2010) (effective
Nov. 1, 2007); id. § 1B1.10 (listing 706 among those amendments
with retroactive effect). Because the plea agreement does not
indicate the parties’ intent to base the agreed-upon sentence on a
particular Guidelines range subsequently lowered by the Sentencing
Commission, sentence reduction is precluded here and Walker’s
motion will be denied. - 2 - BACKGROUND
Walker’s plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) proposed a
stipulated term of 78 months incarceration. The agreement refers
to the Guidelines in stating Walker’s “understand[ing] that if the
Court rejects the parties’ recommendation for an appropriate
sentence . . . and [Walker] does not withdraw his plea, [Walker]
will be sentenced according to Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 3553(a) and 3553(c) through (f), upon consideration of
the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Sentencing
Guidelines”), which will apply to determine [Walker’s] guideline
range.” (Plea agreement ¶ 1.)
I expressly considered the Guidelines range, among other
factors, in determining whether to accept the parties’ proposed
sentence. Sentencing Tr. 8:2-14, Sep. 5, 2006. I accepted the
plea agreement and sentenced Walker to a term of 60 months for
unlawfully using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during a drug
trafficking offense, which represents the statutory minimum for
that offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), and 18 months to run
consecutively for possessing with intent to distribute crack
cocaine.
A defendant is eligible for sentence reduction where he is
“sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range
that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.”
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Walker argues that he is eligible because - 3 - his sentence was at least partially based on a subsequently
lowered sentencing range. The government argues the lowered range
does not apply to Walker because he was sentenced to a stipulated
term as provided in the plea agreement, not to a term based on the
Guidelines.
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court recently considered whether a defendant who
entered and was sentenced under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea may be
eligible for sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based on a
retroactive guideline amendment. See Freeman v. United States,
131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011). Justice Kennedy, in announcing the
judgment of the Court in a plurality opinion, said that the
Sentencing Guidelines “provide a framework or starting point – a
basis, in the commonsense meaning of the term – for the judge’s
exercise of discretion” in accepting or rejecting a plea
agreement. Id. at 2692. The plurality concluded that a sentence
under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea can be “based on” the Sentencing
Guidelines, and thus subject to potential reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2), when the district judge’s decision to accept the
plea and impose the sentence is informed, as it often is, by those
guidelines. See id. at 2695.
Justice Sotomayor concurred with the plurality that relief
under § 3582(c)(2) may be available to defendants sentenced under
Rule 11(c)(1)(C), but only for that particular subset of - 4 - defendants who entered and were sentenced under a plea agreement
that indicates the parties’ intent to base the agreed-upon
sentence on a particular Guidelines range subsequently lowered by
the Sentencing Commission. See id. at 2698 & n.5. The concurring
Justice would therefore require more than mere demonstration of
the district judge’s own consideration of the Sentencing
Guidelines in the course of imposing a sentence. See id. at 2696.
Her higher threshold, then, is the controlling standard that
Walker must meet in order to be eligible for a § 3582(c)(2)
sentence reduction.
Walker’s Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement does not indicate an
intent to base the agreed-upon term of imprisonment on a
particular Sentencing Guidelines range. The plea agreement states
that “[Walker] and the Government agree that a sentence of
seventy-eight months is the appropriate sentence for the offenses
to which [Walker] is pleading guilty.” (Plea agreement ¶ 2.)
However, it does not explain how that term was determined or
indicate any reliance on the Guidelines for the determination.
See Freeman, 131 S. Ct. at 2698 n.5 (“If a (C) agreement does not
indicate the parties’ intent to base the term of imprisonment on a
particular Guidelines range subsequently lowered by the
Commission, then § 3582(c)(2) simply does not apply.”) (Sotomayor,
J., concurring). Nor does the acknowledgment in the plea
agreement that the Guidelines will be considered in fashioning a - 5 - sentence if the recommended sentence is rejected suffice to make
Walker eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2). See Freeman, 131
S. Ct. at 2697 (remarking that “the mere fact that the parties to
a (C) agreement may have considered the Guidelines in the course
of their negotiations does not empower the court under
§ 3582(c)(2) to reduce the term of imprisonment they ultimately
agreed upon”) (Sotomayor, J., concurring). Finally, under Justice
Sotomayor’s controlling concurrence, the fact that I considered
the Guidelines range in deciding whether to accept the plea
agreement carries no weight in the analysis. See Freeman, 131 S.
Ct. at 2696-97 (declining to conclude that district judge is
empowered “to revisit a prior sentence to whatever extent the
sentencing range in question was a relevant part of the analytic
framework the judge used to determine the sentence or to approve
the agreement”) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (internal quotations
omitted). Walker is therefore ineligible for relief.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Because the Freeman decision resulted in a divided majority,
the guiding principles to be applied to motions under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) regarding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) pleas may be subject to
further elucidation. At present, and in the absence of additional
guidance from the D.C. Circuit, the text of the plea agreement is
the focus of the analysis. Walker’s plea agreement does not
demonstrate the parties’ intent to base the term of imprisonment - 6 - on a subsequently lowered Sentencing Guidelines range. Therefore,
it is hereby
ORDERED that Walker’s motion to reduce sentence be, and
hereby is, DENIED.
SIGNED this 14th day of October, 2011.
__________/s/_______________ RICHARD W. ROBERTS United States District Judge