UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

CLIFFORD A. DODDS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 19-3077 

(D.C. No. 2:13-CR-20043-CM-1) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 Clifford A. Dodds appeals from a district court order dismissing his motion for a 

sentence reduction. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Mr. Dodds pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses. In the plea agreement 

entered into under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), the parties agreed 

 *

 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 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 

July 3, 2019

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

Mr. Dodds should be sentenced to 210 months in prison. The Presentence 

Investigation Report (“PSR”) determined that Mr. Dodds was a career offender under 

United States Sentencing Guideline (“U.S.S.G.”) § 4B1.11

 and that his sentencing 

range should be 262 to 327 months. Nevertheless, the district court accepted the 

Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement and sentenced Mr. Dodds to 210 months. He did 

not file a direct appeal. 

Mr. Dodds moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for habeas relief, asserting his counsel 

was ineffective because he failed to object to the PSR’s determination that his prior 

convictions qualified him as a career offender under § 4B1.1. The district court denied 

this claim. This court denied Mr. Dodds a certificate of appealability (“COA”) for 

appellate review. 

Mr. Dodds next moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence based 

on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines and Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 

(2018). The district court denied the motion, holding that neither Amendment 782 nor 

Hughes affects sentences based on § 4B1.1, the career offender Guideline. 

 1

 U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) states: 

A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant 

was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant 

committed the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant 

offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of 

violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the 

defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of 

either a crime of violence or a controlled substance 

offense. 
3 

II. DISCUSSION 

 On appeal, Mr. Dodds argues he was not sentenced as a career offender and that 

Hughes authorizes a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because he entered into a 

Rule 11(c)(1)(C) binding plea agreement. Aplt. Br. at 2. 

A. Legal Background 

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) authorizes a sentence reduction for “a defendant who 

has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has 

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 

Amendment 782 lowered the offense levels under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.

2

 It reduced 

by two levels the base offense levels of crimes involving many of the controlled 

substances listed in the Guidelines’ Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1(c). See U.S.S.G. 

app. C, Amend. 782;3 United States v. Green, 886 F.3d 1300, 1302 (10th Cir. 2018). But 

it did not lower the sentencing range for § 4B1.1 career offenders. See United States v. 

Akers, 892 F.3d 432, 433 (D.C. Cir. 2018). 

In Hughes, the Supreme Court said a defendant may seek § 3582(c)(2) relief on 

the ground he entered into a plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). 138 S. 

 2

 “This amendment revises the guidelines applicable to drug trafficking offenses 

by changing how the base offense levels in the Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1 . . . 

incorporate the statutory mandatory minimum penalties for such offenses.” U.S.S.G. 

app. C, Amend. 782, comment. (effective Nov. 1, 2014). 

3

 U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) contains a Drug Quantity Table that sets the base 

offense level for possession of various drug quantities. 
4 

Ct. at 1778. But it also recognized that § 3582(c)(2) authorizes a sentence reduction 

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

Commission.” Id. at 1775 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)). 

Hughes clarified that Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreements are “based on” a 

Guidelines range—and therefore eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief—if the Guidelines range 

“was part of the framework the district court relied on in imposing the sentence or 

accepting the agreement.” Id. Because “the Sentencing Guidelines prohibit district courts 

from accepting [Rule 11(c)(1)(C)] agreements without first evaluating . . . the defendant’s 

Guidelines range,” the Court held that “in the usual case . . . the sentence to be imposed 

pursuant to [a Rule 11(c)(1)(C)] agreement [is] ‘based on’ the defendant’s Guidelines 

range.” Id. at 1776. 

But if the record clearly indicates that an amended “Guidelines range was not a 

relevant part of the analytic framework the judge used to determine the sentence or to 

approve the agreement, . . . the defendant’s sentence was not based on that sentencing 

range, and relief under § 3582(c)(2) is unavailable.” Id. (quotations and citations 

omitted). 

B. Analysis 

Mr. Dodds argues he was not sentenced as a career offender because he was 

sentenced to 210 months under a “[Rule] 11(c)(1)(C) binding plea.” Aplt. Br. at 2. Even 

if this were so, he would be eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) only if 

his sentence were “based on a sentencing range that [was] subsequently . . . lowered by 
5 

the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Our § 3582(c)(2) analysis must 

focus, therefore, on “the reasons for the sentence that the district court imposed, not the 

reasons for the parties’ plea agreement.” Hughes, 138 S. Ct. at 1776. The only 

sentencing range the court relied on at Mr. Dodds’s sentencing hearing was for a career 

offender, and Amendment 782 did not lower the career offender Guideline. 

The record shows the district court calculated the advisory Guidelines range of 

262 to 327 months using the career offender Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The court 

ultimately sentenced Mr. Dodds to 210 months after determining that “a variance would 

be appropriate in this case from the guideline range sentence.” ROA, Vol. 1 at 81. The 

court never mentioned or applied § 2D1.1(c). In other words, the court looked to the 

Guideline range for § 4B1.1 career offender status, which falls outside Amendment 782’s 

coverage. This leaves Mr. Dodds with no basis to argue for a sentence reduction under 

§ 3582(c)(2) or Amendment 782. 

Although Hughes recognized that Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreements are often 

“based on” the defendant’s Guidelines range for the purposes of a § 3582(c) motion, see

138 S. Ct. at 1776, the Court also acknowledged the statutory requirement that, to qualify 

for a sentence reduction, the defendant’s sentence also must be “based on a sentencing 

range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3852(c)(2). That requirement was satisfied in Hughes because the district court 

calculated the Guidelines sentencing range using the drug quantity Guidelines, which 

were later revised under Amendment 782. See Sentencing Hearing Transcript, United 
6 

States v. Hughes, No. 4:13-CR-043-01-HLM-WEJ (N.D. Ga. Nov. 6, 2015), Dist. Ct.

Doc. 106 at 5-6; see also Hughes, 138 S. Ct. at 1778. 

Here, neither the plea agreement, the change of plea transcript, nor the 

sentencing transcript even mentioned the drug quantity Guidelines. The district court 

calculated a Guidelines range using the § 4B1.1 career offender Guideline. It then 

varied downward from that range to reach the sentence the parties agreed to in the 

plea agreement. Amendment 782 does not affect § 4B1.1. Accordingly, Mr. Dodds’s 

sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that [was] subsequently . . . lowered 

by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

III. CONCLUSION 

The district court correctly determined it lacked authority under § 3582(c)(2) 

to reduce Mr. Dodd’s sentence. We affirm the district court’s judgment. 

Entered for the Court 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge