Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Sentencing — crack cocaine — retroactivity

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//July 18, 2012//

Sentencing — crack cocaine — retroactivity

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//July 18, 2012//

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — crack cocaine — retroactivity

Where a crack cocaine sentence was based on a binding plea agreement rather than the sentencing guidelines, the defendant’s motion for a reduced sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on retroactive changes to the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines was properly denied.

“All that matters is whether the parties’ binding plea agreement was expressly based on the Sentencing Guidelines, not whether the Guidelines informed the parties’ decision to enter into the agreement or whether the Guidelines informed the court’s decision to accept the agreement. See, e.g., Rivera-Martínez, 665 F.3d at 349-50 (defendant ineligible where plea agreement contained an offense level but did not identify any Guidelines sentencing range or a criminal history category); Brown, 653 F.3d at 340 (defendant ineligible where plea agreement, although specifying a range of possible terms of imprisonment, did not ‘expressly use a Guidelines sentencing range to establish his term of imprisonment’). Dixon’s binding plea agreement contained an offense level and criminal history category sufficient to determine that the applicable Guideline range was 360 months to life in prison. The written agreement then provided for a binding range of 180 to 240 months in prison. The written agreement therefore did not expressly base the agreed sentence on a Guideline range in the written agreement itself. Pursuant to Justice Sotomayor’s controlling opinion in Freeman, we find ourselves con12 strained to conclude that Dixon’s sentence was not ‘based on’ a subsequently-reduced Sentencing Guideline range. Accordingly, Dixon is not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2).”

Affirmed.

11-3802 U.S. v. Dixon

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Darrah, J., Hamilton, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests