Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02990/USCOURTS-ca8-15-02990-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Michael Bogdan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2990

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Joseph Michael Bogdan

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs

____________

 Submitted: April 15, 2016

 Filed: August 30, 2016

____________

Before LOKEN, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

LOKEN, Circuit Judge. 

Joseph Michael Bogdan appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence

reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). “Section 3582(c)(2) provides that a court

may reduce a sentence of imprisonment in the case of a defendant who has been

sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” United States v.

Browne, 698 F.3d 1042, 1045 (8th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 133

Appellate Case: 15-2990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2016 Entry ID: 4442687 
S. Ct. 1616 (2013). The district court ruled that Bogdan was ineligible for a

1

reduction because his sentence was based on a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement (“(C) agreement”), not on a retroactively amended

sentencing guidelines range, as § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 require. 

Reviewing the determination of eligibility for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction de

novo, see Browne, 698 F.3d at 1045 (standard of review), we affirm. 

In his 2010 (C) agreement, Bogdan pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute

more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, stipulated to a 240-month sentence, and

acknowledged three prior felonydrug convictions. The government agreed to dismiss

five remaining counts in the indictment and to withdraw two of the three prior

convictions from the information it had filed giving notice of prior convictions under

21 U.S.C. § 851. This reduced Bogdan’s statutory mandatory minimum sentence

from life to twenty years (240 months) in prison. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). 

Before sentencing, the government moved to reduce the stipulated 240-month

sentence based on Bodgan’s substantial assistance. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). At

sentencing, the district court accepted the (C) agreement, granted a 15% substantial

assistance reduction, and sentenced Bogdan to 204 months in prison. 

In 2014, the Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 782 to the advisory

guidelines, which retroactively reducedmost drug quantity base offense levels by two

levels. See United States v. Thomas, 775 F.3d 982, 982-83 (8th Cir. 2014). In

response, the United States Probation Office reported to the district court thatBogdan

appeared to be eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). The district

court denied a reduction, agreeing with the government that Bogdan’s sentence was

based on his (C) agreement, not on drug quantity, and therefore “Amendment 782 has

no impact on [his] sentence.” On appeal, Bogdan argues the district court erred in

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/30/2016 Entry ID: 4442687 
determining that his (C) agreement sentence was not “based on” an applicable

guideline range that was lowered by Amendment 782. We disagree.

1. A threshold question is whether, if we ignore the (C) agreement, Bogdan

would be eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction because Amendment 782 would have

“the effect oflowering [his] applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). 

This question addresses the impact of a statutory mandatory minimum sentence on

§ 3582(c)(2) eligibility. In Golden v. United States, 709 F.3d 1229, 1231 (8th Cir.),

cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 639 (2013), where there was no (C) agreement, the

defendant’s initial guidelinesrange was above the mandatoryminimumsentence, but

the district court granted a substantial assistance reduction and sentenced below the

mandatory minimum. We affirmed the denial of a further § 3582(c)(2) reduction,

concluding that a subsequent guidelines amendment cannot affect a statutory

mandatory minimum sentence. 

Resolving a conflict in the circuits on this issue, the Sentencing Commission

overruled Golden in Amendment 780 by adding U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). The

Commission gave two examples in Application Note 4. Both address situations in

which the initial guidelines range, as well as an applicable mandatory minimum, 

apply and therefore affect the initial sentencing determination -- where the range is

above the minimum, as in Golden, and where a mandatory minimum becomes the

bottom, but not the top, of the range. Here, however, Bogdan asserts that the

mandatory minimum was above his entire guidelines range, a situation that would

seemingly be governed by Application Note 1(A) to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10:

[A] reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not authorized

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . . . if . . . an amendment listed in

subsection (d) [such as Amendment 782] . . . does not have the effect of

lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the

operation of another guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory

mandatory minimum term of imprisonment).

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-2990 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/30/2016 Entry ID: 4442687 
We are inclined to agree with Fourth Circuit Chief Judge William Traxler that, in this

situation, the sentence would not be based on a range the Sentencing Commission

subsequently lowered, “because it was not based on a sentencing range in the first

instance.” United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253, 264 (4th Cir. 2013) (Traxler,

C.J., dissenting). If that is correct, then our decision in United States v. Moore, 734

F.3d 836, 838 (8th Cir. 2013), remains controlling precedent, and Bogdan is not

eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. But the government has not argued this issue,

so we will assume without deciding that both Moore and Golden were overruled by

Amendment 780 and § 1B1.10(c). 

2. Turning to the (C) agreement issue, in United States v. Freeman, 131 S. Ct.

2685 (2011), a divided Supreme Court resolved a conflict in the circuits concerning

when a sentence established by a court-approved (C) agreement is “based on” a

subsequently lowered sentencing range. Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion “is

controlling and representsthe holding of the Court.” Browne, 698 F.3d at 1045. The

opinion states that a defendant whose sentence was imposed pursuant to a (C)

agreement is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction if the (C) agreement “(1) ‘calls for

the defendant to be sentenced within a particular Guidelines sentencing range,’ or (2)

provides for a specific term of imprisonment and ‘makes clear that the basis for the

specified term is a Guidelines sentencing range applicable to the offense to which the

defendant pleaded guilty.’” United States v. Bailey, 820 F.3d 325, 329 (8th Cir.

2016), quoting Freeman, 131 S. Ct. at 2697. “The focus in determining eligibility for

a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction is on the contents of the written plea agreement

itself; the negotiations leading up to the final document do not come into play.”

Browne, 698 F.3d at 1046.

Bogdan argues he is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction because his 240-

month sentence “was clearly based on a guidelines range” that was lowered by

Amendment 782. This requires a clear showing in the terms of the (C) agreement that

an applicable sentencing range was “the basis for the specified term” of 240 months. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-2990 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/30/2016 Entry ID: 4442687 
After reciting that Bogdan would be subject to a minimum statutory term of life in

prison without the (C) agreement because he had two prior felony drug convictions,

§ 841(b)(1)(A), the operative paragraph of the (C) agreement provided:

The parties stipulate that under the circumstances of this case, taking

into consideration [the § 3553(a)] factors; in consideration of the

Defendant’s plea of guilty to the major offense charged in the

Superseding Indictment, the Defendant’s waiver of appeal and postconviction review, and the Defendant’s waiver of a [§ 851] proceeding

regarding his prior felony drug convictions; and based on all

considerations contained in the plea agreement, the appropriate sentence

in this case is twenty (20) years imprisonment, to be followed by a term

ofsupervised release often (10) years, and a $100.00 special assessment

for the Crime Victims Fund. 

A footnote explained that, “[t]o accomplish thisstipulated sentence,” the government

would withdraw two prior felony drug convictions from its § 851 information,

leaving the third in effect. With only one prior felony drug conviction, Bogdan’s

mandatory minimum statutory sentence was 240 months, rather than life. 

§ 841(b)(1)(A). Bogdan argues that the stipulated 240-month-sentence was “based

on the applicable guidelines range” because the PSR calculated his original

guidelinesrange as 188-235 months, and the statutory mandatory minimum sentence

became his applicable guideline range under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b). 

We are not inclined to agree that a (C) agreement “make[s] clear that the basis

for the specified term” is an applicable guidelines range under Freeman merely

because the agreement expressly adopts a statutorymandatoryminimumsentence that

becomes a guidelines “range” artificially established by § 5G1.1(b). Themore logical

interpretation would be that the (C) agreement was based on the mandatoryminimum,

not on a guidelines range. But we need not decide that question in this case because

Bogdan’s contention is factually flawed. His (C) agreement neither recited an

applicable guidelines range of 188-235 months, nor recited facts sufficient to

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-2990 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/30/2016 Entry ID: 4442687 
determine that this was the applicable range. To take an obvious example of why the

agreement did not permit determination of the applicable range asserted by Bogdan,

his prior drug felony convictions surely warranted career offender enhancements

(which do not require filing of a § 851 information), likely producing a guidelines

range that would be, in whole or in part, above the 240-month mandatory minimum. 

In these circumstances, it “is not evident from the [(C)] agreement itself” that the

applicable guidelines range determined the term specified in the (C) agreement, as

Freeman requires. United States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762, 764 (8th Cir. 2014)

(quotation omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 991 (2015); accord United States v.

Johnson, 697 F.3d 1190, 1191 (8th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2014 (2013). 

Bogdan further points to a section of the (C) agreement titled “Sentencing

Considerations,” which recites that, without a (C) agreement, “[should a sentence

pursuant to the advisory [guidelines] be available, the sentence to be imposed would

be solely within the District Court’s discretion,” giving due consideration to factors

that establish an advisory sentencing range, including facts included in the (C)

agreement’s Stipulation of Facts. However, this was nothing more than a provision

showing that the parties understood what would happen without the (C) agreement. 

Such a provision does not show that the (C) agreement “explicitly employ[ed] a

particular Guidelines sentencing range to establish the term of imprisonment.” 

Browne, 698 F.3d at 1046, quoting Freeman, 131 S. Ct. at 2698; accord Bailey, 820

F.3d at 327-28; United States v. Logan, 710 F.3d 856, 859 (8th Cir. 2013). 

We affirm the Order of the district court dated August 19, 2015, denying

Joseph Bogdan’s motion for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction. 

______________________________

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-2990 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/30/2016 Entry ID: 4442687