United States v. Austin

Bad Law
676 F.3d 924·2012 WL 1322204·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7808
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 18, 201210-10001California2,392 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bea, J.

Lorenzo Austin was sentenced to a seventeen-year prison term pursuant to a plea agreement. Two years later, Austin filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U. S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which the district court granted. While this case was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided Freeman v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2685 , 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011). We conclude that Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence in Freeman controls this case because Austin’s plea agreement was a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement (“(C) agreement”). Applying her opinion, we hold that the district court lacked jurisdiction to reduce Austin’s sentence because the imposed seventeen-year sentence was “based on” the parties’ plea agreement and not on “a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2); see Freeman, 131 S.Ct. at 2697-98 (Sotomayor, J., concurring).

I.

In 2005, Austin was charged by indictment with possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.