Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03433/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03433-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jorge L. Davila
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PS3-062 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-3433

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JORGE L. DAVILA,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 1-09-cr-00343-001)

District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

February 20, 2015

Before: FUENTES, SHWARTZ and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Filed: August 7, 2015)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute 

binding precedent.

Case: 14-3433 Document: 003112038799 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2015
2

Jorge Davila appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion for a sentence 

reduction filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). For the reasons below, we will affirm 

the District Court’s order.

In April 2010, Davila pleaded guilty to one count of manufacturing, distributing, 

and possessing with intent to manufacture and distribute cocaine base pursuant to a plea 

agreement based on Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) (a “(C) plea agreement”). In June 2014, 

he filed a motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 of the Sentencing 

Guidelines which lowered the base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses. Concluding 

that Davila was not eligible for a sentence reduction, the District Court denied the 

motion, and Davila filed a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

and review the District Court’s decision regarding Davila’s eligibility de novo. United 

States v. Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 416, 420 (3d Cir. 2012).

When parties enter a (C) plea agreement, they agree, in relevant part, that a 

specified sentence is the appropriate outcome for the charges. If the District Court 

accepts the plea agreement, it is bound by the proposed sentence. Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11(c)(1)(C). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a District Court has the authority to amend a 

sentence if it was based on a Guidelines range that has been lowered. In Weatherspoon, 

we held that a defendant who pleaded guilty pursuant to a (C) plea agreement is eligible 

for a § 3582 sentence reduction only if he can show that his plea agreement identifies a 

Guidelines range and demonstrates a link between that range and the proposed sentence. 

Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d at 423. In concluding that Weatherspoon was not eligible for a 

Case: 14-3433 Document: 003112038799 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2015
3

sentence reduction, we noted that Weatherspoon’s plea agreement did not identify or rely 

on the Guidelines range or provide the information necessary to calculate the Guidelines 

range. Id. at 424.

Davila argues that language in his plea agreement that the proposed sentence was 

“a reasonable sentence under the facts and circumstances of the case” necessarily 

involved contemplation of the guideline range and that “facts and circumstances” are 

terms of art directly linked to offense conduct and offender characteristics. However, the 

plea agreement in Weatherspoon also contained the language that the sentence was “a 

reasonable sentence under the facts and circumstances of the case.” Id. at 418. Davila 

does not point to any “facts and circumstances” listed in the plea agreement which could 

have been used to calculate the Guidelines range, and we have found none. The District 

Court did not err in determining that Davila was not eligible for a sentencing reduction 

pursuant to § 3582(c)(2).

For the above reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order.

Case: 14-3433 Document: 003112038799 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/07/2015