Source: http://ia.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150716_0001162.NIA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-10-19 11:08:19
Document Index: 258970855

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3582', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3582', '§ 3582', '§ 3582', '§ 1', '§ 3582']

KRISTEN JOELLE McCOY, Defendant.
Here, the court is unable to rely on Amendment 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)) to reduce the defendant's sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG § 1B1.10. See generally United States v. Curry, 584 F.3d 1102, 1104 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing United States v. Wyatt, 115 F.3d 606, 608-09 (8th Cir. 1997)) (explaining requirements under USSG § 1B1.10(b)). The parties entered into an agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), and the defendant's sentence is predicated on an agreed upon sentence rather than a sentencing range. Consequently, relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is not available to the defendant. See United States v. Williams, 598 F.3d 963, 965 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) does not apply because court imposed sentence in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C)); see also Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. ___, ___, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 2692-2700 (2011) (requiring a court to determine whether an agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) expressly uses a guideline range applicable to the charged offense to establish the term of imprisonment); United States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762, 764 (8th Cir. 2014) (applying Freeman ).
In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG § 1B1.10 is not justified. Accordingly, the court's own motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is denied. The clerk's office is directed to send a copy of this order to the defendant, the office of the Federal Public ...