United States v. Clardy, 120517 FED6, 17-5094
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Clardy, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Ronald C. Small, Andrew C. Brandon, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. William L. Deneke, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: SILER, KETHLEDGE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||December 05, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville. No. 3:09-cr-00122-1-William J. Haynes, Jr., District Judge.
Ronald C. Small, Andrew C. Brandon, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant.
William L. Deneke, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.
Before: SILER, KETHLEDGE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
Kevin Clardy argues that he has not waived the right to challenge his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), despite explicitly waiving that right in his plea agreement. We have rejected this argument multiple times, albeit in unpublished opinions. The district court likewise rejected it here. We affirm.
In 2009, Clardy pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and to possessing over 50 grams of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute it. He agreed neither to appeal his eventual sentence nor to challenge it under various statutes. In particular, the relevant section of his plea agreement (titled "Waiver of Appellate Rights") states that Clardy "knowingly waives the right to challenge the sentence imposed in any collateral attack, including, but not limited to, a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and/or § 2241, and/or 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)."
After ensuring that Clardy understood the agreement and had signed it of his own will, the district court accepted his plea and sentenced him to 144 months in prison. The Sentencing Commission thereafter amended the Guidelines to reduce the offense levels for drug crimes. Clardy then moved under § 3582(c)(2), which allows a court to reduce a sentence that was based on a Guidelines range that has since been lowered, to have those reductions applied to him. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that Clardy had "expressly waived his right to file a § 3582(c) motion." Clardy now appeals.
We review de novo whether Clardy...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP