Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03847/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03847-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theodore T. Browne
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

1

At the time of Browne’s plea, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(C)

governed pleas where the parties “agree that a specific sentence is the appropriate

disposition of the case.” In 2002, Rule 11 was reorganized and “language similar to

that contained in the [applicable] version of Rule 11(e)(1)(C) is now found in Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).” United States v. Scurlark, 560 F.3d 839, 842-43 (8th Cir.

2009).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3847

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Theodore T. Browne, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 12, 2009

Filed: February 11, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On April 21, 1997, Theodore T. Browne pled guilty to a cocaine base (“crack”)

offense. He was sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment pursuant to the terms of a

plea agreement made under former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(C),1

which the sentencing court accepted. On June 11, 2008, Browne filed a motion for

Appellate Case: 08-3847 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2010 Entry ID: 3633367
-2-

reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). After holding a hearing on

the matter, the district court granted Browne’s motion and reduced his sentence to 168

months. The government appeals, arguing that the district court was without authority

to grant a § 3582(c)(2) reduction because Browne’s sentence was based on the terms

of a Rule 11(e)(1)(C) plea agreement, and therefore was not “based on a sentencing

range” as required for application of § 3582(c)(2).

“In United States v. Scurlark, 560 F.3d 839, 842-43 (8th Cir. 2009), our court

held that when a sentence is based upon a binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement,

courts are bound by the terms of the agreement and have no authority under §

3582(c)(2) to alter those terms because of the subsequently amended Guidelines for

the retroactive crack cocaine sentencing reduction.” United States v. Fonville, 327

Fed.App. 673, 674 (8th Cir. 2009). Scurlark is equally controlling in the context of

a binding plea made under 11(e)(1)(C), the predecessor to Rule 11(c)(1)(C).

Accordingly, the district court erred in granting Browne’s motion for a reduction in

sentence. The judgment of the district court is reversed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-3847 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2010 Entry ID: 3633367