IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41121

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RYAN POWERS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-95-12

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

Ryan Powers, federal prisoner # 21662-078, is serving a 168-month 

sentence for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute more than five 

kilograms of cocaine. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a 

sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to 

the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels 

in the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Citing Freeman v. United 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41121 Document: 00513767287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2016
No. 15-41121

2

States, 564 U.S. 522, 530 (2011), Powers argues that the district court erred in 

finding him ineligible for a sentence reduction because he was sentenced 

pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.

Section 3582(c)(2) grants a district court the discretion to modify a 

defendant’s sentence if he “has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment 

based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the 

Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). However, a defendant sentenced 

pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement may be eligible for a § 3582(c)(2)

reduction only if “the agreement itself employs the particular Guideline 

sentencing range applicable to the charged offenses in establishing the term of 

imprisonment.” Freeman, 564 U.S. at 540 (Sotomayor, J., concurring).

Powers’s plea agreement does not call for him “to be sentenced within a 

particular Guidelines sentencing range;” nor provides “for a specific term of 

imprisonment . . . but also make[s] clear that the basis for the specified term 

[wa]s a Guidelines sentencing range applicable to the offence to which [he] 

pleaded guilty;” nor “explicitly employs a particular Guidelines sentencing 

range to establish a term of imprisonment.” See id. at 538-40. Thus, Powers’s 

Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence was not based on a sentencing range that was 

lowered by Amendment 782, and the district court had no authority to reduce 

his sentence under § 3582(c)(2). See Freeman, 564 U.S. at 538-40; United 

States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807, 812 (5th Cir. 2016). Powers has not shown that 

the district court erred in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion.1 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Powers’s motions for 

discovery and the production of transcripts are DENIED.

 

1 As the district court did not err in determining that Powers is ineligible for a sentence 

reduction because his sentence was imposed pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, 

we do not consider the parties’ arguments relating to the Government’s alternative assertion 

that Powers is ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on his status as a career offender.

 Case: 15-41121 Document: 00513767287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2016