United States v. Leonard

• Decision Date: 14 December 2016
• Docket Number: August Term, 2016,Docket No. 15-2232-cr
• Parties: United States of America, Appellee, v. Jamahl Leonard, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

844 F.3d 102

United States of America, Appellee,

v.Jamahl Leonard, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 15-2232-cr

August Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: September 2, 2016

Decided: December 14, 2016

Bruce R. Bryan , Esq., Syracuse, New York, for Defendant-Appellant.

Frank T. Pimentel , Assistant United States Attorney, for William J. Hochul, Jr., United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, New York, for Appellee.

Before: Raggi, Chin, Droney, Circuit Judges.

Reena Raggi, Circuit Judge:

Defendant Jamahl Leonard was convicted in 2008 in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (David G. Larimer, Judge ), after pleading guilty to conspiracies to distribute 100 or more kilograms of marijuana, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846 ; and to launder the proceeds of that illegal trafficking, see 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Presently incarcerated, serving a 114-month prison term, Leonard appeals from a final order entered by the same court on June 15, 2015, which concluded that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court reasoned that, although a post-conviction, retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines had lowered the 121-to-151-month Guidelines range identified by the court at Leonard's initial sentencing, the amended 97-to-121-month range was not lower than the 97-to-121-month range agreed to by the parties in their plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). Leonard challenges this conclusion, arguing that, once the district court accepted his 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, the sentencing range specified therein became his "applicable" range for purposes of determining § 3582(c)(2) eligibility. And because the amendment lowered that range to 78 to 97 months, Leonard maintains he is eligible for a sentence reduction to that extent.

The government defends the district court's ineligibility determination, maintaining that (1) Leonard's sentence was "based on" his 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, not the Sentencing Guidelines as required by § 3582(c)(2) ; and, (2) in any event, Leonard's 114-month sentence is within the now-amended applicable range, (a) precluding a finding that his applicable range was lowered by a subsequent amendment as required by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1), or (b) at least rendering any ineligibility error in this case harmless.

Neither party's argument is completely persuasive. Contrary to the government, we conclude that Leonard is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction because his original sentence was "based on" the Sentencing Guidelines as that statutory phrase has been construed by the five justices in the majority in Freeman v. United States , 564 U.S. 522, 525, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) (plurality opinion); id. at 534, 131 S.Ct. 2685 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment). At the same time, however, we conclude that the extent of the reduction for which Leonard is eligible is narrower than he urges because his "applicable" Guidelines range, as defined by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A), was the 121-to-151-month range calculated by the district court before accepting what was effectively a downward variance to the 97-to-121-month range prescribed in the parties' 11(c)(1)(C) agreement. Because the relevant Guidelines amendment reduced Leonard's originally applicable 121-to-151-month range to a 97-to-121-month range, Leonard is eligible for a reduction of his 114-month sentence, but to no less than 97 months' incarceration, the low end of the amended range. See U.S.S.G § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). Whether to grant any reduction is, of course, a matter entrusted to the district court's discretion. See United States v. Christie , 736 F.3d 191, 194–95 (2d Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, because we conclude that Leonard is at least eligible for such a reduction, we vacate the challenged order and remand for the district court to decide whether or not to exercise its reduction discretion in this case.

I. Background

A. Leonard Pleads Guilty Pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) Agreement

On May 23, 2008, Leonard pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute "at least 700 but less than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana," and to laundering the proceeds of that criminal activity in an amount "more than $30,000 but less than $70,000." App'x 9–10. In a written plea agreement, Leonard and the prosecution noted their agreement to certain Sentencing Guidelines calculations, specifically, to a base offense level of 30 with a three-level upward adjustment for aggravating role and a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. With further agreement to a criminal history category of I, the parties' calculations yielded a "guideline sentencing range" of 97 to 121 months' imprisonment. Id. at 13. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), the parties agreed that Leonard should be sentenced within this Guidelines range and that, if the district court were to reject that part of the plea agreement, "defendant shall then be afforded the opportunity to withdraw the plea of guilty." App'x 13.¹

B. Sentencing

Prior to sentencing, the district court received a Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") from the Probation Department ("Probation"), which calculated Leonard's Sentencing Guidelines range at 151 to 188 months rather than the 97-to-121-month range referenced in the parties' 11(c)(1)(C) agreement. While Probation agreed that Leonard's base offense level was 30 and that he was entitled to a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, it recommended a two-level increase for possession of firearms by a co-conspirator, and a four- (rather than three-) level increase for Leonard's organizing role. Further, because Leonard had committed the crimes of conviction while under conditional discharge from an earlier conviction, Probation calculated his criminal history category at II rather than I.

At sentencing, the district court rejected the recommended firearms enhancement, but adopted the four-point role enhancement, as well as the higher criminal history category to yield a Guidelines range of 121 to 151 months. While the district court acknowledged that the parties had "some issue" with these enhancements, it reiterated its conclusion that "the guidelines are as I indicated, 121 to 151" months. App'x 94. Nevertheless, it stated that it was "prepared to accept" the parties' 11(c)(1)(C) agreement and to sentence Leonard "within the range of 97 to 121 months" identified therein, which it deemed "sufficient in my view, but not greater than necessary, to meet [statutory] sentencing objectives." Id. at 94–95. Accordingly, the district court sentenced Leonard to 114 months' imprisonment, four years' supervised release, a $2,500 fine, and a $200 special assessment.

C. Amendments to Applicable Guidelines Range

Almost six years after Leonard's sentencing, the United States Sentencing Commission issued two relevant Guidelines amendments. Amendment 782, which took effect in 2014, amended the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to reduce the offense levels associated with certain controlled substances crimes by two levels. See U.S.S.G., Supp. to App. C, Amend. 782. Thus, the base offense level for the quantity of marijuana involved in Leonard's drug crime of conviction was reduced from 30 to 28. See id. § 2D1.1(c)(6). Amendment 788, which also took effect in 2014, provided for retroactive application of Amendment 782. See id. at Supp. to App. C, Amend. 788.

D. Motion To Reduce Sentence

On May 11, 2015, Leonard invoked the two aforementioned amendments to move pro se for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).² The district court denied the motion on June 15, 2015, concluding that Leonard was ineligible for a sentence reduction. The court reasoned that, although it had "determined the applicable Guidelines range to be 121-151 months," and the amendments had reduced that range to 97 to 121 months, it had in fact sentenced Leonard within the latter range pursuant to the plea agreement, such that Amendment 782 "[did] not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range." App'x 191; see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

Leonard timely appealed from the decision.³

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

Where, as here, a defendant seeks a sentence reduction based on a retroactive Guidelines amendment, a district court must determine (1) whether the defendant is eligible for a reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and (2) whether a reduction is warranted in light of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Because the initial eligibility question—the only one here at issue—depends on statutory interpretation, our review is de novo . See United States v. Williams , 551 F.3d 182, 185 (2d Cir. 2009).

B. Leonard's Eligibility for a Sentence Reduction

Congress has pronounced a convicted defendant eligible for a sentence reduction if (1) he "has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered," and (2) "such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). The pertinent policy statement conditions reduction eligibility on "the guideline range applicable to that defendant ha[ving] subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (d)." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, two requirements must be satisfied for a defendant to be eligible for a sentence reduction: (1) the original sentence must have been "based on" the Sentencing Guidelines, and (2) the amendment must have lowered the Guidelines range "applicable to" the defendant at the time of the original sentencing. See United States v. Pleasant , 704 F.3d 808, 810–11 (9th Cir. 2013) (observing that "applicable to" language...