Modifying the Restrictions on Sentence Modification: United States v. Cobb

I. INTRODUCTION As of January 29, 2011, approximately 191,000 inmates were serving sentences in federal prisons across the United States;1 of these sentences that were handed down in 2008, nearly ninety-six percent were the result of a plea agreement.2 In the federal criminal system, the Sentencing Commission attempts to ensure that defendants receive similar sentences for similar crimes by establishing sentencing guidelines - a range in which defendants should be sentenced for a particular crime.3 In part because judges are required to consider the guidelines when issuing a sentence,4 the guidelines play a key role in plea negotiations, serving as a basis upon which prosecutors and defendants try to determine the best "deal."5 The Sentencing Commission reviews and adjusts the guidelines from time to time based on a variety of factors.6 While in most cases a court cannot modify a sentence once it is imposed, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) offers an exception when the defendant's sentence was based on a guideline that was subsequently reduced.7 In theory, this prevents a defendant who was sentenced before a guideline reduction from receiving a longer sentence than a defendant convicted of the same crime but sentenced after the reduction. For several years this exception had its own very large exception because circuit courts held that when a defendant entered into a Rule 11 plea agreement, his sentence was based solely on the agreement - even if the defendant, prosecutor, and court consulted the guidelines - thus making him ineligible for a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).8 In United States v. Cobb9 the Tendi Circuit joined what may be a new trend in interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 3582 by holding diat a sentence pursuant to a plea agreement may be based on the sentencing guidelines as well as the Rule 1 1 agreement, thus making these defendants eligible for sentence modifications. This Note argues that the Tendi Circuit was correct in applying a broader interpretation of § 3582. Part II oudines the facts and procedural history of Cobb. Part III then discusses the legal background and basis for other circuits' narrow interpretation of the "based on" language of § 3582. Part LV describes the Tenth Circuit's holding in Cobb. Finally, Part V discusses how the Tendi Circuit's interpretation is well within the statutory language and more in line with the purpose behind the sentencing guidelines. II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Cobb was charged with four crack cocaine-related offenses in March 1999; he entered into a Rule 11(e)(1)(C)10 agreement, and ultimately pled guilty to possession of 1000.5 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute.11 The plea agreement stated that the sentence would be determined by applying the sentencing guidelines, noted that the guideline range was 168 to 210 months, and stipulated to a sentence of 168 months, "the bottom of the applicable guideline range."12 At the sentencing hearing, the judge took note of the guideline range and, finding no reason to depart from it, imposed the 168-month sentence, explaining that the "sentence [was] within the guideline range."13 In December 2007, the Sentencing Commission unanimously reduced the sentencing guideline range base offense by two levels for crack cocaine-related offenses and made the reduction retroactive, effective March 2008. 14 Under the revised crack cocaine guidelines, the sentencing range for Cobb's offense dropped from 168 months to 135.15 When the revisions became retroactive, Cobb moved for a new sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),16 which allows a court to consider modifying a sentence when the original sentence is "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission."17 Cobb argued that his sentence should be reduced to the bottom of the new range because the sentence in his plea agreement was so tied to the guideline range that his sentence was necessarily "based on" the guidelines. …