United States v. Fields , 339 F. App'x 872 ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
July 28, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 08-2217
(D.C. No. 2:02-CR-02262-JAP-3)
WILLIAM MACK FIELDS, (D. N.M.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, PORFILIO, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Defendant William Mack Fields appeals the denial of his motion under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a modification of his term of imprisonment. The
district court denied the motion on the merits, holding that his sentence was
ineligible for a reduction under that section. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court was without
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the appellant’s request for a decision on the briefs without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
jurisdiction to consider the motion, we remand with instructions to dismiss
Mr. Fields’s motion.
Background
A second superceding indictment charged Mr. Fields with seven counts of
crack cocaine- and firearms-related offenses. On April 29, 2003, he pled guilty to
all seven counts pursuant to a written plea agreement. That agreement included a
stipulation, expressly pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), that a sentence of
20 years was the appropriate term of imprisonment to be imposed. The United
States Probation Office prepared a presentence report (PSR) calculating the
applicable guidelines sentencing range as 108 to 135 months. But the PSR
concluded that a mandatory minimum sentence applicable to one of the counts
increased the guidelines imprisonment sentence to 240 months. Moreover, the
PSR noted that two other counts carried additional sentences of five years each, to
run consecutively to any other term of imprisonment, for a total of 360 months.
The PSR noted the shorter 240-month stipulated sentence in the plea agreement.
Consistent with that stipulation, on October 3, 2003, the district court sentenced
Mr. Fields to a term of imprisonment of 240 months.
On April 17, 2008, Mr. Fields filed a motion to reduce his sentence under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which permits a reduction “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.” After
-2-
appointing counsel to represent defendant and directing the government to file a
response, the district court denied the motion, stating, “Defendant Fields’s
sentence was based on a plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). His
sentence is thus ineligible for reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the
amended Sentencing Guidelines applicable to convictions for cocaine base
offenses.” R., Vol. 1 at 159 (Doc. 198). Mr. Fields appealed the district court’s
denial of his motion and this court appointed counsel to represent him in this
appeal. Defense counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), accompanied by a motion to withdraw.
Discussion
“A district court does not have inherent authority to modify a previously
imposed sentence; it may do so only pursuant to statutory authorization.”
United States v. Mendoza, 118 F.3d 707, 709 (10th Cir. 1997). Mr. Fields
invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) as the basis for the district court’s authority to
reduce his sentence. “Unless the basis for resentencing falls within one of the
specific categories authorized by section 3582(c), the district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider [defendant’s] request.” United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d
539, 541 (10th Cir. 1997). “The scope of a district court’s authority in a
resentencing proceeding under § 3582(c)(2) is a question of law that we review
de novo.” United States v. Rhodes, 549 F.3d 833, 837 (10th Cir. 2008),
cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2052 (2009).
-3-
Section 3582(c)(2) provides:
(c) Modification of an imposed term of imprisonment.--The court
may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed
except that--
...
(2) 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 . . . the court may reduce the term of
imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in
section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if
such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
In support of his contention that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under this
section, Mr. Fields relies on Amendment 706 of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines, which “generally adjust[ed] downward by two levels the base offense
level assigned to quantities of crack cocaine,” United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d
1236, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008). Amendment 706 applies retroactively. See id.Defendant argued in his motion that, as a result of this amendment of the
Sentencing Guidelines, his offense level would be reduced from 29 to 27, thereby
lowering his applicable sentencing range. But we conclude that the district court
had no authority to modify Mr. Fields’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) because his
term of imprisonment was not “based on a sentencing range” as required by that
section.
-4-
In United States v. Trujeque, 100 F.3d 869, 869 (10th Cir. 1996), we held
that a defendant who entered into a plea agreement specifying a term of
imprisonment pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(1)(C) may not seek a reduction
in his sentence under § 3582(c)(2). The provisions of Rule 11(e)(1)(C) are now
found in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), which provides that “the plea agreement
may specify that an attorney for the government will . . . agree that a specific
sentence . . . is the appropriate disposition of the case.” When considering this
type of plea agreement, the district court “may accept the agreement, reject it,
or defer a decision until the court has reviewed the presentence report.”
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(3)(A). But a stipulated sentence in a plea agreement
“binds the court once the court accepts the plea agreement.” Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(1)(C).
In Trujeque, after noting the applicable guidelines range, the district court
had sentenced the defendant to 84 months imprisonment, consistent with the
stipulated sentence in his plea agreement. 100 F.3d at 871. Consequently, we
reasoned that the defendant’s sentence “was based on a valid Rule 11(e)(1)(C)
[now Rule 11(c)(1)(C)] plea agreement,” rather than “on a sentencing range that
has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” Trujeque,
100 F.3d at 871 (quotation omitted). Since our decision in Trujeque, other
circuits have followed suit in holding that a district court does not have authority
to modify a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) when the sentence was imposed pursuant
-5-
to a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. See, e.g., United States v. Sanchez,
562 F.3d 275, 280-82 (3d Cir. 2009) (collecting cases). As the Third Circuit
explained, § 3582(c)(2) obliges the court to ask what the sentence was based on:
Where, as here, the District Court accepted a so-called “C” plea, the
answer is simple: the sentence is based on the terms expressly
agreed on by the defendant and the government. . . .
. . . [The defendant’s] sentence cannot be based on the Guidelines
because the Court lacked the discretion to consider anything outside
of the parties’ agreement in sentencing him.
562 F.3d at 282 n.8. As in Trujeque, the district court here properly determined
that Mr. Fields’s sentence was ineligible for reduction under § 3582(c)(2).
That determination rendered the district court without jurisdiction to
consider Mr. Fields’s motion, and the court therefore should have dismissed it for
lack of jurisdiction. See Trujeque, 100 F.3d at 871 (holding that district court
should have dismissed motion “without considering its merits”); Smartt, 129 F.3d
at 541 (“Unless the basis for resentencing falls within one of the specific
categories authorized by section 3582(c), the district court lacked jurisdiction to
consider [defendant’s] request.”).
-6-
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons we REMAND to the district court with
instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Mr. Fields’s motion for
resentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We DENY as moot defense counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
Entered for the Court
Deanell Reece Tacha
Circuit Judge
-7-