Hughes v. United States

• Decision Date: 04 June 2018
• Docket Number: No. 17–155.,17–155.
• Citation: 201 L.Ed.2d 72,138 S.Ct. 1765
• Parties: Erik Lindsey HUGHES, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

138 S.Ct. 1765

201 L.Ed.2d 72

Erik Lindsey HUGHES, Petitioner

v.UNITED STATES.

No. 17–155.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 27, 2018.

Decided June 4, 2018.

Eric Shumsky, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Rachel P. Kovner, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Stephanie A. Kearns, Brian Mendelsohn, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, Eric A. Shumsky, Thomas M. Bondy, Melanie L. Bostwick, Katherine M. Kopp, Benjamin F. Aiken, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Daniel A. Rubens, Cynthia B. Stein, Alison M. Kilmartin, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, John P. Cronan, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Eric J. Feigin, Rachel P. Kovner, Assistants to the Solicitor General, Ross B. Goldman, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

The proper construction of federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure can present close questions of statutory and textual interpretation when implementing the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Seven Terms ago the Court considered one of these issues in a case involving a prisoner's motion to reduce his sentence, where the prisoner had been sentenced under a plea agreement authorized by a specific Rule of criminal procedure. Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011). The prisoner maintained that his sentence should be reduced under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) when his Guidelines sentencing range was lowered retroactively. 564 U.S., at 527–528, 131 S.Ct. 2685 (plurality opinion).

No single interpretation or rationale in Freeman commanded a majority of the Court. The courts of appeals then confronted the question of what principle or principles considered in Freeman controlled when an opinion by four Justices and a concurring opinion by a single Justice had allowed a majority of this Court to agree on the judgment in Freeman but not on one interpretation or rule that courts could follow in later cases when similar questions arose under the same statute and Rule.

For guidance courts turned to this Court's opinion in Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977). Some courts interpreted Marks as directing them to follow the "narrowest" opinion in Freeman that was necessary for the judgment in that case; and, accordingly, they adopted the reasoning of the opinion concurring in the judgment by Justice SOTOMAYOR. See United States v. Rivera–Martinez, 665 F.3d 344, 348 (C.A.1 2011) ; United States v. Thompson, 682 F.3d 285, 290 (C.A.3 2012) ; United States v. Brown, 653 F.3d 337, 340, n. 1 (C.A.4 2011) ; United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807, 811 (C.A.5 2016) ; United States v. Smith, 658 F.3d 608, 611 (C.A.6 2011) ; United States v. Dixon, 687 F.3d 356, 359 (C.A.7 2012) ; United States v. Browne, 698 F.3d 1042, 1045 (C.A.8 2012) ; United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275, 1277–1278 (C.A.10 2013).

In contrast, the Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Ninth Circuits held that no opinion in Freeman provided a controlling rule because the reasoning in the concurrence was not a "logical subset" of the reasoning in the plurality. United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014, 1021–1022 (C.A.9 2016) (en banc); United States v. Epps, 707 F.3d 337, 350 (C.A.D.C.2013). Those courts have adopted the plurality's opinion as the most persuasive interpretation of § 3582(c)(2). Davis, supra, at 1026; Epps, supra, at 351.

To resolve these differences over the proper application of Marks and the proper interpretation of § 3582(c)(2), the Court granted certiorari in the present case. 583 U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 542, 199 L.Ed.2d 422 (2017). The first two questions, relating to Marks, are as follows: (1) "Whether this Court's decision in Marks means that the concurring opinion in a 4–1–4 decision represents the holding of the Court where neither the plurality's reasoning nor the concurrence's reasoning is a logical subset of the other"; and (2) "Whether, under Marks, the lower courts are bound by the four-Justice plurality opinion in Freeman, or, instead, by Justice SOTOMAYOR's separate concurring opinion with which all eight other Justices disagreed." Pet. for Cert. i.

The third question is directed to the underlying statutory issue in this case, the substantive, sentencing issue the Court discussed in the three opinions issued in Freeman . That question is: "Whether, as the four-Justice plurality in Freeman concluded, a defendant who enters into a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is generally eligible for a sentence reduction if there is a later, retroactive amendment to the relevant Sentencing Guidelines range." Pet. for Cert. ii.

Taking instruction from the cases decided in the wake of Freeman and the systemic concerns that have arisen in some Circuits, and considering as well the arguments of the parties as to question three, a majority of the Court in the instant case now can resolve the sentencing issue on its merits. So it will be unnecessary to consider questions one and two despite the extensive briefing and careful argument the parties presented to the Court concerning the proper application of Marks . The opinion that follows resolves the sentencing issue in this case; and, as well, it should give the necessary guidance to federal district courts and to the courts of appeals with respect to plea agreements of the kind presented here and in Freeman .

With that explanation, the Court now turns to the circumstances of this case and the sentencing issue it presents.

I

A

Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the United States Sentencing Commission establishes Sentencing Guidelines based on the seriousness of a defendant's offense and his criminal history. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 820, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). In combination, these two factors yield a range of potential sentences for a district court to choose from in sentencing a particular defendant. "The Sentencing Guidelines provide the framework for the tens of thousands of federal sentencing proceedings that occur each year." Molina–Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. ––––, ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1338, 1342, 194 L.Ed.2d 444 (2016).

After this Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the Guidelines are advisory only. But a district court still "must consult those Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing." Id., at 264, 125 S.Ct. 738 ; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4). Courts must also consider various other sentencing factors listed in § 3553(a), including "the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct." § 3553(a)(6).

The Act requires the Commission to review and revise the Guidelines from time to time. 28 U.S.C. § 994(o ). When the Commission amends the Guidelines in a way that reduces the Guidelines range for "a particular offense or category of offenses," the Commission must "specify in what circumstances and by what amount the sentences of prisoners serving terms of imprisonment for the offense may be reduced." § 994(u). In this way the Act requires the Commission to decide whether amendments to the Guidelines should have retroactive effect.

If an amendment applies retroactively, the Act authorizes district courts to reduce the sentences of prisoners who were sentenced based on a Guidelines range that would have been lower had the amendment been in place when they were sentenced. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Specifically, § 3582(c)(2) provides:

"[I]n 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 ), ... 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."

B

The controlling issue here is whether a defendant may seek relief under § 3582(c)(2) if he entered a plea agreement specifying a particular sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). This kind of plea agreement is sometimes referred to as a "Type–C agreement."

In a Type–C agreement the Government and a defendant "agree that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate disposition of the case, or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply," and "such a recommendation or request binds the court once the court accepts the plea agreement." Rule 11(c)(1)(C). When the Government and a defendant enter a Type–C agreement, the district court has three choices: It "may accept the agreement, reject it, or defer a decision until the court has reviewed the presentence report." Rule 11(c)(3)(A). If the court rejects the agreement, the defendant may withdraw his guilty plea. Rule 11(c)(5)(B).

In deciding whether to accept an agreement that includes a specific sentence, the district court must consider the Sentencing Guidelines. The court may not accept the agreement unless the court is satisfied that "(1) the agreed sentence is within the applicable guideline range; or (2)(A) the agreed sentence is outside the applicable guideline range for justifiable reasons; and (B) those reasons are set forth with specificity." United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 6B1.2(c) (Nov. 2016) (USSG). "[T]he decision whether to accept the agreement will often be deferred until the sentencing hearing," which means that "the decision whether to accept the plea agreement will often be made at the same time that the defendant is sentenced." United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670, 678, 117 S.Ct. 1630, 137 L.Ed.2d 935 (1997...