United States v. Jimmy Thornton

MEMORANDUM

The United States appeals from the district court’s order reducing the prison sentence of defendant-appellee Jimmy Lee Thornton pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). We conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce Thornton’s sentence, and reverse.

Thornton does not dispute that he was sentenced pursuant to a binding plea agreement of the kind described in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). Therefore, unless Thornton’s 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement was itself “based on” a United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines range that has subsequently been reduced, the district court lacked § 3582(c)(2) jurisdiction to modify his sentence. Freeman v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 2695 , 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 927-28 (9th Cir.2012).

Here, no “Guidelines sentencing range [is] ‘evident from the agreement itself”; nor does the plea agreement “ ‘expressly use’ a Guidelines range.” See Austin, 676 F.3d at 930 . “No sentencing range appears on the face of the plea agreement[,]” and the “terms of the agreement do not ‘make clear’ that any particular…