Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04025/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04025-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benjamin Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

BENJAMIN SMITH, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 16-4025 

(D.C. No. 2:13-CR-00776-DB-1) 

(D. Utah) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

In February 2015, Benjamin Smith pled guilty to possession with intent to 

distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), admitting that his 

crime involved at least 5 grams, but less than 20 grams, of actual methamphetamine. 

Based on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, the district court imposed 

a 180-month prison sentence.1

 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It 

may be cited, however, for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 

10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 Under Rule 11(c)(1)(C), if the defendant and the government agree to a 

specific sentence in the plea agreement, “such a recommendation or request binds the 

court once the court accepts the plea agreement.” Here, Smith pled guilty to the 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

August 8, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-4025 Document: 01019668607 Date Filed: 08/08/2016 Page: 1 
2 

After sentencing, a probation officer prepared Smith’s Presentence 

Investigation Report (PSR) and calculated that Smith’s base offense level was 24 and 

his total offense level was 23. When coupled with Smith’s criminal history category 

of III, this offense level resulted in a recommended Guidelines range of 57 to 71 

months in prison. See U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A. But the probation officer also noted that 

Smith faced a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of ten years, resulting in a 

recommended Guidelines sentence of 120 months in prison. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b) 

(“Where a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the 

applicable [G]uideline[s] range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be 

the [G]uideline[s] sentence.”). 

Smith later asked the court to appoint an attorney to assist him in filing a 

motion to reduce his sentence in light of Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, which 

reduced by two most of the base offense levels in the Guidelines’ Drug Quantity 

Table. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 782; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (permitting 

court to modify defendant’s sentence if it was “based on a sentencing range that has 

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission”). The district court 

construed Smith’s request as a motion to reduce his sentence, and denied that motion 

based on a finding that Smith was sentenced “pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) 

agreement [that] did not rest on the applicable [G]uideline[s] range.” R. vol. 1, 166; 

 

§ 841(a)(1) charge and agreed to a 180-month prison sentence in exchange for the 

government dropping four other criminal counts, including a charge of using and 

carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). 

In light of Smith’s previous § 924(c) conviction, the new § 924(c) charge would have 

carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i). 

Appellate Case: 16-4025 Document: 01019668607 Date Filed: 08/08/2016 Page: 2 
3 

see United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275, 1278 (10th Cir. 2013) (explaining that a 

defendant may be eligible for a sentence reduction if his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea 

agreement “is based on a Guideline[s] sentencing range that is retroactively 

amended”). Proceeding pro se,2

 Smith appeals. 

We review de novo the district court’s conclusion that Smith isn’t eligible for 

a sentence reduction, see United States v. Rhodes, 549 F.3d 833, 837 (10th Cir. 

2008), and now affirm. 

Smith insists that his plea agreement was—contrary to the district court’s 

finding—based on a Guidelines sentencing range. In support, Smith explains that he 

had an oral agreement with the government that his sentence would be “based, in 

part, on” the Guidelines sentencing range of 57 to 71 months in prison. Aplt. Br. 2. 

But even if we assume that Smith’s plea agreement was based on this 

Guidelines range, he is nevertheless ineligible for a sentence reduction. Effective 

November 2014, Amendment 782 lowered the base offense level for at least 5 grams, 

but less than 20 grams, of actual methamphetamine from 26 to 24. See U.S.S.G. app. 

C, amend. 782. Here, the probation officer used this reduced base offense level when 

calculating Smith’s Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months. See Supp. R. vol. 2, 5 

(sealed) (calculating Smith’s base offense level of 24 using “[t]he 2014 Guidelines 

Manual, incorporating all [G]uideline[s] amendments”); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(8) 

(listing 24 as current base offense level for at least 5 grams, but less than 20 grams, 

of actual methamphetamine). Thus, even if we assume that Smith’s Rule 11(c)(1)(C) 

 2

 We liberally construe Smith’s pro se filings, but we won’t act as his 

advocate. James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). 

Appellate Case: 16-4025 Document: 01019668607 Date Filed: 08/08/2016 Page: 3 
4 

agreement was based on the Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months, that range hasn’t 

“subsequently been lowered by” Amendment 782. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

Accordingly, we agree with the government that Smith is ineligible for a sentence 

reduction. See id.; United States v. Curtis, 252 F. App’x 886, 887 (10th Cir. 2007) 

(unpublished) (explaining that because the relevant amendment “did not subsequently

lower [defendant’s] sentencing range, . . . the district court had no jurisdiction to 

consider a modification to his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)”). 

Nevertheless, the district court should have dismissed—rather than denied—

Smith’s motion. See United States v. White, 765 F.3d 1240, 1250 (10th Cir. 2014).3

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order denying Smith’s motion and remand 

with directions to enter an order dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction. We 

also deny Smith’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his motion for 

appointment of counsel. 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

 3

 Although “it is settled in this circuit that a district court must dismiss a 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for lack of jurisdiction when a defendant is ineligible for a 

reduced sentence,” other circuits take a different approach. United States v. MoyaBreton, No. 15-4185, 2016 WL 3435465, at *2 n.3 (10th Cir. June 21, 2016) 

(unpublished) (citing cases from the Seventh and Second Circuits concluding that 

defendant’s ineligibility for relief under § 3582(c)(2) isn’t a jurisdictional defect). 

Moreover, “in fairness to the district court, we note that the standard form for an 

order disposing of a § 3582(c)(2) motion—the AO 247—doesn’t provide a check box 

for dismissal.” Id. 

Appellate Case: 16-4025 Document: 01019668607 Date Filed: 08/08/2016 Page: 4