### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50458 U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ,

Plai n t i f

f - A pp el l ee v. M A R C O A G A R C IA , a ls o k n o w n a s M a r c o G a r c ia ,

Def e nda nt - Appe l l ant A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas B e fo r e J O N E S , C h ie f J u d g e , a n d H IG G IN B O T H A M a n d E L R O D , C ir c u it Ju dg es. P E R C U R I A M: T h rough an agreem en t w i t h t h e governm en t , M arco A . G a rc ia pl ead ed gu i l t y t o conspi racy t o di st ri bu t e 500 or m ore gram s of coc ai n e an d 50 or m ore g ra m s of

cr ack, i n vi ol ati on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 841(a) ( 1) & 846 . Th e di st ri ctcourt ac c ept ed t he pl ea agr ee m ent – w hi c h pro vi ded f ora m i ni m um pr i so n t er m of 240 m ont hs – and, af

t ercal c ul at i ng G ar c i a’ s gui del i nes r ange, s ent enc ed hi m t o 2 62 m on t h s. A f

t er r et roact i ve i m pl em en t ati on of t h e crack sentenci n g am en dm en t s, G arci a m oved t o reduce h i s sentence un der 18 U . S . C . § 3582 ( c) ( 2) . Th e di st ri ct c o ur t g r ant e d t he m ot i on a n d c hang e d Gar c i a’ s s e nt e nc e t o 2 40 m o nt hs , t he m i ni m um s t i pul at e d t o i n t he pl e a ag r e e m e nt . G ar c i a ap pe al s , ur gi ng t hatt he di st ri ct court err ed i n hol di n g t h at t h e p lea a g reem en t preven t ed f u rt h er United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma y 7, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-50458 Document: 00511103804 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2010N o. 08- 50458

Thisru lewa s p revio u sly co difi ed at F ed er al Ru le of C ri mi n al Pro ce dure1 1 (e)( 1 )( C ), 1 see U nit ed States v. San chez , 56 2 F .3d 2 75, 276& n.2 ( 3dC ir. 2 009), an d provi des th at the prosecutor can“a gre e th at a s p ec if ic sentenc e o r sentenc ing ra nge i s theapp ropri ate di sp os itio no f th e ca se .” B ecau se Rule11 doe s no t co unt ena nce mini mum sentenc es – but ratherspecific 2 sente nces or ranges – we c an imputeth at the parti ally bou nded ran ge , ina sense, was 24 0 month s to the statut orymaximum, in this case life . 2 r e d u c t io n . A ft e r c o n fi r m in g th e d is t r ic t c o u r t h a d ju r is d ic t io n to m o d if y G a r c ia ’s s e n t e n c e , w e a f

f i r m. I . I n J anua r y 20 06 , a fe de r alg r and j u ry ret ur ne d a n i ndi c t m e nt c har gi ng G a r c ia o n s e v e n c o u n ts o f s e llin g la r g e q u a n tit ie s o f c r a c k a n d co c a in e . G a r c ia bar gai ned t o pl ead g ui l t y t o c ount one – c ons pi r ac y t o di st r i but e a t l eas t 500 gr am s of

c o c ai ne a nd 1 , 50 0 gr am s o f c r ac k –i n e xc hang e f o r t he g o ve r nm e nt dro ppi ng t he o t her s i x c harge s. The par t i es r educ ed t he agre em ent to w r i t i ng, w i t h a sentence st i pu la tion p u rsuan t t o F ederal R u l e of C ri m i n al P rocedure 11 ( c ) ( 1) ( C) . Pa r ag r ap h 1 9 o f t he pl e a ag r e e m e nt s t at e d t hat“ t he D e fe nda nt a nd 1 G o v e r n m e n t a g r e e th a t t h e s e n te n c e in th is ca s e w ill b e a t le a s t 2 4 0 m o n th s .” 2 T h e p le a a g r e e m e n t a ls o co n te m p la te d th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s , a lb e it w i t h t h e 240 m on t h m i n i m u m overl ay. Pa ragrap h 8 pr o vi de d: “ T h e parti es agree t o request t h e C ou rt t o consultw i t h an d take i n t o accoun t t h e U n ited States S en t en ci n g G u i del i n es and accom pa n yi n g pol i cy stat em en t s ( ‘ t h e U . S . S . G . ’ ) f or th e ca lc u la tio n o f th e D e fe n d a n t’s s e n te n c e p u r s u a n t t o 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 .” Paragr aphs 10 and 15 di sc uss ed t he pos sibi l i t y t hat t he go ver nm ent w oul d m ove fo r a d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e fr o m th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s . T h e g o v e r n m e n t in par agr aph 17, ci t i ng t o U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1(b) , pr om i se d t o m ove f oran addi t i onal Case: 08-50458 Document: 00511103804 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2010N o. 08- 50458

Un ited St atesv . Do u b li n , 5 7 2 F .3 d 2 3 5 , 2 3 6( 5 thC ir . 2 0 0 9). 3 3 poi nt deduc t i on f

r om G ar c i a’ s of

fens e l eve las a “ r ew a rd ” fo r hi s t i m el y pl ea. F in a lly , p a r a g r a p h 1 9 d e c la r e d th a t, b e s id e s th e 2 4 0 m o n th m in im u m , “[a ]ll . . . se n te n cin g issu e s . . . w il l be d e te rm in e d b y th e C o u rt a fter th e co m p letio n of a P r e s e n te n c e In v e s tig a tio n R e p o r t.” At t he s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng o n J une 8, 20 06 , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ad o pt e d t he report an d f

ou n d G arci a’ s t ot al of fen se l evel t o be 37 a n d h i s c ri m i n al hi st ory c at e go r y t o b e o ne , y i e l di ng a s en t en ci n g r ang e o f 2 10 t o 2 62 m o nt hs . The d is tr ic t c o u r t “ a d o p t[e d ] . . . th e a p p lic a tio n o f th e U .S . S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s .” H ow ev er, b eca u se it a c c ep ted the plea ag ree m en t, alon g w i th i ts 24 0 m on th m i ni m um , t he c our t ul t i m at el y det er m i ned t he se nt enc i ng r ange t o be 240 t o 2 62 m o n t h s a n d s e n t e n c e d Ga r c i a a t t h e h i g h e s t e n d , 2 6 2 m o n t h s . I n s h o r t , t he r ang e w as b o unde d on t he b o t t o m b y t he pl e a ag r e e m e nt a nd o n t he t o p b y t he gu i del i n es.
“ I n 2 00 7, t he U ni t e d St at es Se nt e nc i ng Com m i s s i o n a m e nde d t he gui de l i ne s . Gene r al l y, i t r e duc e d t he b as e o f fe ns e l e ve l s f

o r c rack c o c ai ne o f fe ns e s b y t w o , i n o r de r t o r e duc e t he s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i t y be t w e e n c r ac k a nd p ow d er co ca i n e offen ses ; an d i t m a d e th ese gu i d eli n es a p p l y re troa cti ve ly .” 3 G ar c i a m ove d f

ora r educ t i on under 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) , w hi c h pro vi des t hat t he di st r i c t cour t m ay re duce a pri so n t er m “i n t he c as e o f a de f endant w ho has bee n se nt enc ed t o a t er m of i m pri so nm ent based on a se nt enc i ng r ange t hat has su b seq u en tl y b ee n l ow ere d b y t h e S en ten ci n g C om m i ssion . ” P u rsu a n t t o U . S. S. G . § 1B1. 10 (b) ( 1) , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t “ de t e r m i ne [ d] t he a m e nde d g ui de l i ne r ang e t hatw o ul d hav e b een a ppl i c ab l e t o [ G ar c i a] i f t he a m e ndm e nt [] t o t he gu i del i n es . . . ha d been i n ef fect at t h e t i m e [ h e] w as sentenced. ” Th at am en ded Case: 08-50458 Document: 00511103804 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/07/2010N o. 08- 50458

A sin gl e numbe r i s hardlya “ran ge ,” b ut t he sente nci ngguide lin es cre ate this 4 in el ega n ce . See , e. g. , U.S.S.G. § 5G1 .1(b) (“Whe re astatutorilyrequired mini mum sentenc e is great er thanth e maxi mum of the applica bl e guidelinera nge, th e statuto rilyrequir ed mi nim u m s ente n cesh allb e th e gu id elin e se nte n ce .”). “[E ]ve ry federal appellatecourt h as aspeci al oblig atio n to satisfyit self not only of its 5 own j uri sdictio n, b ut also that of t he l ow er c ourt s ina cau se u nder review . . . .” Ben der v . Wil li am sp ort AreaSch. D is t. , 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986) (qu otation marks omitted). Th e di strict court’s j uri sdictio n to c orrec t ormodify a de fenda nt’s sente nce is limitedto thosespec if ic circ u mst a n ce s e n u me rate d b yC on gre ss in1 8U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 . United States v. Brid ges , 11 6 F .3 d 1 1 1 0 , 1 1 1 2 ( 5 thC ir . 1 9 9 7); se e alsoUn ited Statesv. E

ar ly , 27F .3d 1 40, 141 –42 (5th Cir. 199 4). “We review den ovo whe therth e di strict court h ad j uri sdictio n to re sente nce.” Brid ges , 116F .3d at 1 112 . 1 8U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)( 2 ) (e mp h a si s s u pp li ed). 6 Un ited St atesv . B ro wn , 7 1 F . App ’x3 8 3 , 3 8 4( 5 thC ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (u n pub li sh ed). 7 4 r ang e c am e o ut t o 1 68 t o 2 10 m o nt hs . But , i n a c o nt i nui ng e f f o r t t o ho no r t he pl ea bar gai n, t he di st r i c t c our t det er m i ned t he ac t ual am ended r ange t o b e 2 40 t o 240 m on t h s, t h e agreed-t o m i n i m u m sentenced. T h e di st ri ctcourt gran t ed 4 G ar c i a ’ s mo t i o n a n d r e d u c e d h i s s e n t e n c e t o 2 4 0 mo n t h s . Ga r c i a a p p e a l e d, u rgi n g t h at t h e di st ri ct court coul d h ave gon e l ow er. II. a . T h e f i rstqu est i on i s w h et h er t h e di st ri ctcourt ha d j u ri sdi ct i on t o reduce G arci a’ s sentence at al l . C on gress au t h ori zed r edu ct i on s of t h i s kind on l y w h ere 5 th e cou rt o ri gin a l l y set th e term of i m p ri son m en t “ ba sed on a s ent enc i ng r ange t hat has s ubse quent l y be en l ow er ed byt he Sent enc i ng C om m i ss i on. ” W e have 6 h e ld in a n u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n th a t w h e n a d e fe n d a n t r e c e i v e s a R u le 1 1 (e )(1 )(C ) s tip u la te d s e n te n c e , a r e d u c tio n u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) “d o e s n o t a p p ly .” 7 M ost of t he c o ur t s o f a ppe al s t o c o ns i de r t he “ ba s e d o n” i s s ue ha ve c om e Case: 08-50458 Document: 00511103804 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/07/2010N o. 08- 50458

See United States v. Scu rlark , 5 6 0F .3 d 8 3 9 , 8 4 0

–4 3( 8 thC ir . 2 0 0 9). 8 See United Statesv. Sanch ez , 5 6 2 F .3 d 2 7 5 , 2 7 6

– 8 2 ( 3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9); id. at28 2–8 3 9 (R en de ll , J ., c oncurrin g).

Seei d . at 283–84(Roth, J., di ssentin g) (“No good deed go es u npu nish ed. . . . Forth e 10 majo rity , th e b indingn ature o f suchagreements j ustifi es adiffer en c e in the treatment betwee n the offen ders whoch oose to go totri al and tho s e w ho c ho os e to ple ad guilty thu s saving judic ialand governme ntal resourc es. . . . From my perspective, it strains credulityto im a gin e th at th e pl eaa gre em ent wa s notba sed onth e Gui deli nes. Wh en offen ders are consi derin g a plea , the sente nci ng conse que nces, inc luding the impact of the Se ntencin g Guid elin es , areac ru ci al el em ent inr eachin gth e b argain .”).

United States v. Ray , 5 9 8F .3 d 4 0 7 , 4 1 1 ( 7 thC ir . 2 0 1 0). 11 United States v. Cieslo wski , 4 1 0F .3 d 3 5 3 , 3 6 4( 7 thC ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 12 5 o ut t he sa m e w ay . W he n i n a pl e a ag r e e m e nt a de fe nda nt a nd t he g o ve r nm e nt l oo k to t h e se n ten ci n g gu i d eli n es a n d s ti p u l a te to o n e of the i r ran ge s, the E i gh th C i r c ui t has hel d t h a t § 3 5 82( c ) ( 2) doe s not appl y – bec ause t he s ent enc e w as based on R u l e 11(c ) ( 1) ( C ) an d n ot “ st ri ct l y i n accordan ce” w i t h t h e gu i del i n es. 8 T h e T h i rd C i rcui t ha s hel d si m i l arl y, t h at a speci f i c s en t en ce s t i pu l ati on un der R u l e 11(c ) ( 1) ( C ) f

orecl oses a § 358 2 ( c) ( 2) res en t en ci n g, t h i s over a pointed 9 d i s s e n t . T h e S e v e n t h C i r c u i t h a s t h e s a me g e n e r a lr u l e , b u t a l l o w s f o r s o me 10 f l exibi l i t y: “ I n t he abse nce of expl i c i t l anguage i n t he agr ee m ent t o t he c ont r ar y, a s ent enc e i m pos ed pur suant t o a F ED . R. C RIM . P . 1 1( c ) ( 1) ( C) pl e a ag r e e m e nt can n ot be sai d to be ‘ based on ’ the S en t en ci n g G u i del i n es. A n agreem en t m u st cl earl y ref

l ect a n i n t en t t h at t h e sentence be m odi f i ed w h en t h e G u i del i n es s hi f t . ” O ut s i de o f t he § 35 82 ( c ) ( 2) c o nt e xt , t he s am e c o ur t has be e n ri gi d, 11 o p in in g t h a t “[a ] s e n te n c e im p o s e d u n d e r a R u le 1 1 (c )(1 )(C ) p le a a r is e s d ir e c tly f r om t he agr ee m ent i t se l f, not f r om t he G uide l i nes , ev en t hough t he c our t c an and s ho ul d c o ns ul t t he G ui de l i ne s i n de c i di ng w he t he r t o a c c e pt t he pl e a. ” The 12 Case: 08-50458 Document: 00511103804 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/07/2010N o. 08- 50458

SeeU n ited St atesv . Ma in , 5 7 9F .3 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 1

–0 4( 2 d C ir . 2 0 0 9). 13 United States v. Pevele r , 3 5 9F .3 d 3 6 9 , 3 7 0

– 7 9( 6 thC ir . 2 0 0 4). 14 Id. at37 9. 15 Un ited

St atesv . Dew s , 5 5 1 F .3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 9( 4 thC ir . 2 0 0 8), reh’g enban c granted(4th 16 C ir . 2 0 0 9), appeal d ismissed as moo t( 4 thC ir . 2 0 0 9). 6 S e c o n d Ci r c ui t has he l d t h a t a d e fe n d a n t wh o e n t e r e d i n t o a Ru l e 1 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C) agreem en t t o ser ve n o m ore than 9 6 m on t h s, a n d w h ose gui del i n es r an ge t u rned o ut t o b e 1 20 t o 1 50 m o nt hs , c o ul d no t q ual i f y f o r a § 3 58 2( c ) ( 2) r e duc t i o n, becau se hi s 84 m on t h sentence w as based not on the gu i del i n es, b u t on the pl ea ag r e e m e nt . The Si xt h Ci r c ui t t ak e s t he harde s t l i ne : i n a c as e i n whi c h t he

13 defenda n t st i pu l ated t o a t ot al of fen se l evel of 30 , bu t not t o a cr i m i n al hi st ory cat egory, an d the govern m en t prom i sed t o ask f or a sentence on t h e l ow end of t h e appl i c ab l e g ui de l i ne s r ang e , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s a c c e pt anc e o f t he pl ea f o r e c l o s e d l a t e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . Th e c o u r t h e l d t h a t Ru l e 1 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C) 14

“ pre c l udes t he di st r i c t c our t f r om al t er i ng t he par t i es ’ agr ee d s ent enc e under18 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c). T h is co n clu sio n a p p li e s d e sp ite th e re tro a ctiv ity of a s ubs e que nt a m e ndm e nt to a re l e va nt g ui de l i ne ut i l i z e d t o de t e r m i ne t he d e fe n d a n t’s s e n te n c e .” 15 O t he r c i r c ui t s ha ve c o m e o ut di f fe r e nt l y. The F ou rt h Ci r c ui t , he w i ng cl osel y t o stat u t ory text , h el d over st rong d i ssent t h at a R u l e 11(c ) ( 1) ( C ) sentence st i pul at i on di d not di sq ual i f y de fendant s f

r om § 3582( c)( 2) r es ent enc i ng, exp l ai n i n g, “ a sentence m ay be b o th a gu i del i n es- based sentence el i gib le f or t reat m en t un der § 3 582 ( c) ( 2) a n d a sentence st i pu l ated t o by the parti es i n a pl ea ag r e e m e nt . ” ( The c o ur t v ac at e d i t s o pi ni o n b y gr ant i ng r e he ar i ng e n banc a nd 16 ul t i m at el y di sm i ss ed t he appea las m oo t . ) An d t he Tent h C i r c ui t l at el y has Case: 08-50458 Document: 00511103804 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/07/2010N o. 08- 50458

See gen erally United States v. Cob b , 5 8 4F .3 d 9 7 9( 1 0 thC ir . 2 0 0 9). 17 Id. at98 5. 18 Seei d . at 988 (H art z, J., dis se nting) (cit ing United States v. Trujequ e , 100 F.3 d 86 9 19 (1 0 thC ir . 1 9 9 6)) . The Ninth Circuit was the first t o a dopt this nece ssary , if unsatisfying , ca se-specific 20 a pp ro a ch . United States v. Bride , 58 1 F.3 d 888 , 891 (9th Cir. 2 009) (“I t i s no t enough that th e parti es toa plea agre ementconsidere d the Gui delines in recommen ding a sente nce. R ath er, th e te rm s o f th e pl eaagre em ent arekeyto de te rm inin gwhe th erth e de fe n da nt’ s s ente n cewa s, inf a ct , b a se d onase nte n ci n gr a n ge th at wa s late r re du ce d b yth e Se nte n ci n gC om mi ssion .”). 7 ta k e n a p o s itio n a t t h e o p p o s ite e n d o f th e s p e c tr u m fr o m th e S ix th : in a ca s e in w hi c h t he R ul e 11( c ) ( 1) ( C ) st i pul at i on s pec i f i ed t hat t he def

endant w oul d r ec ei ve a s e nt e nc e o n t he l o w e nd o f hi s g ui de l i ne s ran ge o f 1 68 t o 2 10 m o nt hs , t he ci rcui t courthel d that t h e di st ri ctcou rtcoul d redu ce t h e sentence un der § 358 2( c) ( 2) . Th e court expl ai n ed that § 3582(c ) ( 2) “ al l ow s f or re d u ctions of 17 sen ten ces w h i ch are b a sed i n a n y w a y on a q u a l i fyi n g ran ge , ” an d pr oclaim ed to

“ ho l d t r ue r t o t he [ s t at ut o r y] l an gu age” t han t he c i r c ui t c o ur t s t o c o m e o ut d i ffere n t l y. A di ss ent i ng j udge w ant ed t o f ol l ow pr evi ous Tent h C i r c ui t l aw 18 h ol di n g t h at R u l e 11 sentence st i pu l ati on s do not fal lun der t h e gu i del i n es. 19 U l t i m at e l y, no ne o f t he s e c i r c ui t s de al t w i t h a s t i pul at e d m i ni m um s e n te n c e , s o G a r c ia ’ s ca s e is th e w r o n g v e h ic le w ith w h ic h to e n te r th is d e m o litio n d e r b y . H e r e , w e h a v e n o re a s o n to p a s s o n a p le a w ith a s p e c ific senten ce, or a m axim u m , or a ran ge bou n ded on both en ds by the gu i del i n es. H ow ever, t h e casel aw – ri fe w i t h i n t er- an d i n t ra- ci rcui t di sagreem e n t – does t e ac h t hatw o o de n r ul e s w i l l no t do . The j ur i s di c t i o nalq ue s t i o n i s w he t he r t he s e nt e nc e w as “ba s e d o n” t he s ubs e quen t l y am en ded cr ack-of fen se gui de l i ne s , a nd an sw eri n g t h at questi on requi res t h at w e ex am i n e the n u an ces of both t h e pl ea agreem en t an d the sentenci n g t ran scr i pt i n each p art i cul ar case. 20 Case: 08-50458 Document: 00511103804 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/07/2010N o. 08- 50458

Th e Sev enthC ircuith a s r ec entlye a se d of f ac ate goric al a pp ro a cht o a do ptth e ca se -b y -c a se metho d, li sting

possib le exceptio ns toit s gen er alrule and explainin g: “We make cl ear, however, thatour de cisio ns to dayan d in Raydo not meanth at allRule 1 1( c ) ( 1) ( C) plea agreements fore close reli ef u nder sectio n 358 2(c)(2).” Un ited St atesv . F ra n k li n , ___ F.3d

____ ,

____ , 20 10 WL 142 753 6, at *3 , 2010 U . S . App. L EXI S 7 417 , at*9(7th Cir. Apr. 1 2, 2 010) (r efe renc ing United States v. Ray , 5 9 8F .3 d 4 0 7( 7 thC ir . 2 0 1 0)) . The parti es d i dn o ts t ipul ate toan offe nselevel or a crim inal his tor y categor y. 21 Althou ghth eylikelyesti m at edGarci a’s guideline s ran ge , “[i]t is difficult toconceive o f any crim in al ca sei nwhichth e partie s an d th eir co u n se l”d o n ot . SeeDe ws , 551 F.3d at 213(Age e, J., dissentin g). Given the amou nt of cr ack involved, Garcia’ s ba se offe nse level was 38 . With allth e d ed uc t ions sought byGarci a, the totaloffe nse level coul d h ave b eenas low a s 35 , or w it h variou s enhancements it coul d h ave b eenas high as 4 0. This would h ave produce d guideline s ran ge s of 168to 210months and 292 t o 36 5 m on t hs, re spectively . (After a j ury convicti on on count one , Garcia coul d have faced 360months t o life.) I n anyevent, the parti es never stated thatth e 2 40 monthminimum was anchor ed to a guideline s ran ge , and non e o f th e gu id elin esr a n gest er mi n ateat, o r h av e a s th eir mi dp oint, 2 4 0mo nth s.

See United States v. Evans , 5 8 7F .3 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 1 ( 5 thC ir . 2 0 0 9). 22 8 D o i ng s o , w e c o nc l ude t he di s t r i c t c o ur t s e nt e nc e d Gar c i a ba s ed on t he sentenci n g gu i del i n es – j u st as t h e pl ea agree m e n t p rov i ded . Th e parti es s t i pul at e d t o a m i ni m um se nt e nc i ng r ang e i r r e s pe c t i ve o f t he g ui de l i ne s . But 21 t he agr ee m ent al l ow ed t hat t he m axi m um poi nt on G ar c i a’ s r ange co ul d der i ve f rom t h e gu i del i n es i f the h i gh end of

t h e gu i del i n es r an ge exceeded 240 m on t h s. It d i d , an d the distri ct cou rt sen ten ced G a rcia to 26 2 m o n th s b a s ed on i ts gui de l i ne s c al c ul at i o n. The a bl e di s t r i c t j udg e e xp r e s s l y s ai d a s m uc h: “ I a do pt

. . . the ap p l i ca ti on of th e U . S . S en ten ci n g G u i d eli n es . . . . ” G a rcia qu a l i fi ed to m o ve f o r a r e duc t i o n.

b . A § 3582 ( c) ( 2) proceedi n g i s not a f u l lres en t en ci n g, so B ookeran d i ts 22 Case: 08-50458 Document: 00511103804 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/07/2010N o. 08- 50458

Id. at 672 (ref

ere ncing United States v. Boo ker , 5 4 3U .S . 2 2 0( 2 0 0 5 )) . 23 Un ited

St atesv . Do u b li n , 5 7 2 F .3 d 2 3 5 , 2 3 8( 5 thC ir . 2 0 0 9). 24 Evans , 58 7 F .3d at 6 72. 25 He ntz v. Har

gett , 7 1 F .3 d 1 1 6 9 , 1 1 7 3( 5 thC ir . 1 9 9 6) (qu ot ati onmark s o mitt ed). 26 Un ited

St atesv . Sel

f , 5 9 6F. 3d 245, 248 (5th Cir. 2010) (c itin g F ED . R. C R IM . P. 27 1 1 (c)( 1 )( C )) . 9 bi f u rcat ed reason ableness r evi ew do n ot app l y. G u i del i n es am en dm en t s do not 23 e nt i t l e de fe nda nt s t o a r e s e nt e nc i ng; i ns t e ad , § 3 58 2( c ) ( 2) “ m e r e l y gi ve s t he d is tr ic t c o u r t d is c r e tio n to re d u c e a s e n te n c e u n d e r lim ite d cir c u m s ta n c e s .” 24 W e, t h eref

ore, revi ew t h e di st ri ct court’ s r edu ct i on deci si on f or an ab u se of di s c r e t i o n. 25

“ Pl ea bar gai n agr ee m ent s ar e con t r ac t ual i n nat ure , and ar e t o b e c o ns t r ue d a c c o r di ngl y. ” The y bi n d t he pa r t i e s , a nd, m o r e i m po r t ant l y, t he 26 c o ur t , t o o , i s b o und “ o nc e [ i t ] a c c e pt s t he pl e a ag r e e m e nt . ” Gar c i a’ s a gr e e m e nt 27 st i pu l ated t o a m i n i m u m sentence of 240 m on t h s, u n m oored f rom a n y gu i del i n es c al c ul at i o n. W he n t he s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s f o r c r ac k o f

fe ns e s c hang e d, bri n gi n g dow n t h e hi gh end of G arci a’ s r an ge, hi s negoti ated m i n i m u m st ayed put . B y m o di f

yi ng t he se nt e nc e t o 2 40 m o nt hs , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t g av e G ar c i a t he bi ggest redu ct i on f

or w h i ch h e w as el i gi bl e.

III. G a rcia’ s p l ea a gr ee m en t l eft th e d i stri ct cou rt t o u se th e g u i d eli n es, w i th t h e exc e pt i o n t hatt he t e r m o f i m pr i s o nm e nt c o ul d no t fal lb e l o w 2 40 m o nt hs. Case: 08-50458 Document: 00511103804 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/07/2010N o. 08- 50458

10 Th e c our t bas ed G ar c i a’ s se nt enc e o n t he gui del i ne s’ u pper l i m i t , a l i m i t t hat t um bl e d a f

t e r t he c r ac k a m e ndm e nt s , a l l o w i ng G ar c i a t o m o ve f o r a r e duc t i o n. B y re d u ci n g G a rcia’ s sen ten ce to 2 4 0 m on th s, the distri ct cou rt con ti n u ed to e xe c ut e t he pl e a ag r e e m en t a s o r i gi nal l y w r i t t e n, a nd t he g o ve r nm e nt a nd G arci a got exact l y w h at t h ey h ad bargained for . AF F I RMED. Case: 08-50458 Document: 00511103804 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/07/2010