UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JULIAN BELTRAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-8122 

(D.C. No. 1:11-CR-00196-ABJ-5) 

(D. Wyo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Julian Beltran appeals from the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 

Amendment 782 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.” or 

“Guidelines”) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

we affirm. 

 

*

 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 ordered 

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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 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 consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 

10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 4, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

I. BACKGROUND 

In September 2011, a superseding indictment charged Mr. Beltran with conspiracy 

to traffic in methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 

846. In May 2012, Mr. Beltran entered a plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), which permits parties to “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).” In the plea agreement, Mr. Beltran stipulated he conspired to possess with 

intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and he was subject to an 

aggravating role enhancement under the Guidelines. Notwithstanding the enhancement 

and the advisory Guidelines sentencing range, the agreement stated the parties agreed to a 

sentence of 120 months. 

After Mr. Beltran agreed to the guilty plea, the United States Probation Office 

prepared a presentence report stating the statutory sentencing range was ten years to life 

and the advisory Guidelines sentencing range was 135 to 168 months. The district court 

sentenced him to 120 months. 

In 2014, the Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment 782, which 

provides a retroactive two-level reduction for drug offenses involving many of the 

controlled substances listed in the Guidelines’ Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. 

§ 2D1.1(c), including methamphetamine. U.S.S.G. app. C suppl., Amends. 782, 788. 

Mr. Beltran moved for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), seeking a two-level 
- 3 - 

reduction from his sentence. The district court dismissed Mr. Beltran’s motion because 

his sentence did not qualify for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). Mr. Beltran appealed. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review and Legal Background 

The scope of a district court’s authority under § 3582(c)(2) is a question of law we 

review de novo. United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275, 1277 (10th Cir. 2013). 

“Federal courts generally lack jurisdiction to modify a term of imprisonment once 

it has been imposed.” Id. Section 3582(c)(2) is an exception to that rule: it gives courts 

jurisdiction and discretion to “reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the 

factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a 

reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission.” 

A federal court lacks jurisdiction to modify a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) when a 

defendant has entered into a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement and the district court has 

imposed a sentence that is not based on a Guidelines sentencing range. Id. at 1278; see 

also United States v. Jones, No. 15-2128, 2015 WL 8757254, at *2 (10th Cir. Dec. 15, 

2015) (unpublished) (“Because [the defendant] entered into a rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea 

agreement, we must determine whether his sentence was based on the sentencing range 

that has since been lowered, a question that goes to . . . the district court’s jurisdiction 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).”). 
- 4 - 

In Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011), Justice Sotomayor wrote a 

concurring opinion that states the controlling holding.1

 She explained that federal courts 

have jurisdiction to consider a sentence reduction in two situations when the defendant 

has entered a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement: (1) when the agreement “call[s] for the 

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

the agreement “provide[s] for a specific term of imprisonment—such as a number of 

months—but also make[s] clear that the basis for the specified term is a Guidelines 

sentencing range applicable to the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty.” 

131 S. Ct. at 2697-98. 

B. Analysis 

Mr. Beltran’s Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement does not meet either of the 

situations outlined in Freeman. The agreement mentions the Guidelines twice. First, it 

states, “The Defendant has been advised of § 1B1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines 

regarding use of relevant conduct in establishing sentence and has read the advisement 

regarding supervised release as stated in this Plea Agreement.” ROA, Vol. II at 41. 

Second, it states, “[T]he evidence to be presented by the government at sentencing would 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant is subject to an aggravating 

 

1

 In Graham, we explained that, along with Justice Sotomayor’s opinion, the 

Freeman Court issued a plurality opinion and a dissenting opinion that each garnered 

four votes. 704 F.3d at 1277. Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion “charted a middle 

ground between the plurality and the dissent.” Id. at 1277-78. We stated, “Every federal 

appellate court to consider the matter has reached the same conclusion, and we agree: 

Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence is the narrowest grounds of decision and represents the 

Court’s holding.” Id. at 1278. 
- 5 - 

role enhancement under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, section 3B1.1.” Id. at 42. The 

agreement then states, “However, since this plea agreement is made pursuant to Rule 

11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the parties stipulate and agree 

that a 120 month (10 year) term of imprisonment is a just and appropriate sentence given 

all aggravating and mitigating factors.” Id.

Even though the Guidelines sentencing range was 135 to 168 months, the parties 

agreed to and the district court imposed a 120-month sentence. The agreement does not 

mention a Guidelines sentencing range, let alone “call for the defendant to be sentenced 

within a particular Guidelines sentencing range.” Freeman, 131 S. Ct. at 2697. And it 

does not “make clear that the basis for the [120-month] term is a Guidelines sentencing 

range applicable to the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty.” Id. Simply put, it 

does not base the 120-month term on the Guidelines sentencing range of 135 to 168 

months. 

We conclude Mr. Beltran’s Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement was not based on a 

sentencing range that Amendment 782 has lowered. The district court therefore lacked 

jurisdiction to consider the § 3582(c)(2) motion and properly dismissed it. See United 

States v. White, 765 F.3d 1240, 1250 (10th Cir. 2014) (stating dismissal of a § 3582(c)(2) 

motion, rather than denial on the merits, is appropriate when the district court lacks 

jurisdiction). 
- 6 - 

III.CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Beltran’s 

motion. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT, 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge