Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03222/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03222-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nyene Baker
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-3222

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

NYENE BAKER a/k/a JASON ANDERSON a/k/a UNSCO

Nyene Baker, Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-10-cr-00086-001)

District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

February 12, 2016

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR., and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 11, 2016)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Nyene Baker seeks review of the District Court’s order denying 

his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have 

 

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

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-3222 Document: 003112230495 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2016
2

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the District Court determined that 

Baker was ineligible for relief as a matter of law under § 3582(c)(2), our review is 

plenary. United States v. Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 416, 421 (3d Cir. 2012). For the 

following reasons, we will affirm.

In 2010, Baker was charged in a four-count superseding indictment with cocaine 

and marijuana trafficking offenses. He entered into a plea agreement with the 

Government pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C)1, under which he pleaded guilty to 

all four counts in exchange for an agreed-upon sentence of 180 months of imprisonment. 

No appeal was taken. In 2015, Baker filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 

§ 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, 

which reduced the offense levels assigned to most drug quantities under U.S.S.G. 

§ 2D1.1(c) by two levels. The District Court denied Baker’s motion, and this timely 

appeal ensued. 

 

1 Rule 11(c)(1)(C) provides: 

An attorney for the government and the defendant's attorney, or 

the defendant when proceeding pro se, may discuss and reach a 

plea agreement. The court must not participate in these discussions. 

If the defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere to either a 

charged offense or a lesser or related offense, the plea agreement 

may specify that an attorney for the government will:

...

agree that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate 

disposition of the case, or that a particular provision of the Sentencing 

Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not 

apply (such a recommendation or request binds the court once the 

court accepts the plea agreement).

Case: 15-3222 Document: 003112230495 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2016
3

Section 3582(c)(2) authorizes a district court to modify or reduce a defendant’s 

sentence when that sentence was “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been 

lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” A sentence pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) (a “C 

plea”) is based on the Sentencing Guidelines only when it (1) explicitly “call[s] for the 

defendant to be sentenced within a particular Guidelines sentencing range” or (2) 

“provide[s] for a specific term of imprisonment” but also “‘make[s] clear’ that the 

foundation for the agreed-upon sentence was the Guidelines.” Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 

at 422-23 (quoting Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685, 2695 (2011) (Sotomayor, 

J., concurring in the judgment)). A review of Baker’s plea confirms that neither of these 

two situations applies.2 

Baker and the Government agreed to a “specific sentence of imprisonment” and 

that the “agreed-upon sentence is as follows: 180 months [of] imprisonment . . .” Plea 

Agreement at ¶ 4 (emphasis added). The plea clearly does not call for a sentence within a 

specific Guidelines range; indeed, the only ranges noted in the plea are the statutory 

maximum and mandatory minimum sentences provided for each of the offenses. The 

plea also failed to identify Baker’s offense level or the anticipated criminal history 

category, both critical to making a Guidelines calculation. See Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 

 

2 Baker argues that the sentencing transcript makes clear that the sentence was based on 

the Guidelines; however, [i]n the (C) agreement context . . . it is the binding plea 

agreement that is the foundation for the term of imprisonment to which the defendant is 

sentenced.” Freeman, 131 S. Ct. at 2696 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment); see 

also Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d at 422 (“Any statements made by the District Court, the 

probation department, or counsel are irrelevant to this analysis.”). 

Case: 15-3222 Document: 003112230495 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/11/2016
4

at 424 (Guidelines range is not identified where the criminal history category is not 

“evident from the agreement itself”) (citation omitted). Although the plea references the 

Guidelines, particularly the provisions that provide downward adjustments based on 

Baker’s acceptance of responsibility and assistance to authorities, this is insufficient to 

conclude that the sentence was based on them. See Freeman, 131 S. Ct. at 2697 

(Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment) (“the mere fact that the parties to a (C) 

agreement may have considered the Guidelines in the course of their negotiations does

not empower the court under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce the term of imprisonment they 

ultimately agreed upon”). The District Court therefore properly concluded that Baker 

was ineligible for a sentence reduction. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order. 

Case: 15-3222 Document: 003112230495 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/11/2016