Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170919_0002278.MPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-11-25 06:20:45
Document Index: 202127480

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 3582', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 3']

WAYNE A. KRAMER, III, Defendant
The pro se defendant, Wayne A. Kramer, III, an inmate at FCI Fort Dix, New Jersey, pled guilty to a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), distribution of heroin. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), he agreed with the government that his sentence would be 144 months' imprisonment.
Defendant has filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence. The motion is based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Generally, Amendment 782 retroactively reduces the offense level by two levels for most drug quantities used in sentencing determinations. Even though Defendant's sentence was agreed upon pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c), rather than seemingly based on the guidelines, he contends that Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011), permits him to seek a reduction based on the Amendment.
Some defendants who enter into a (C) plea agreement can obtain relief under section 3582(c)(2). However, Defendant is not one of them. We will therefore dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
In May 2010, Defendant executed a written plea agreement, agreeing to plead guilty to a superseding information charging him with a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), distribution of heroin. The agreement mentioned that the maximum penalty for the offense was twenty years, a fine of one million dollars, and a maximum term of supervised release of up to three years. (Doc. 33, plea agreement ¶ 1). It also stated:
The defendant further agrees that any legal and factual issues relating to the application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to the defendant's conduct, including facts that support any specific offense characteristic or other enhancement or adjustment and the appropriate sentence within the statutory maximums provided for by law, will be determined by the court after briefing, or a presentence hearing, or at a sentencing hearing.
(Id. ¶ 1). In pertinent part, paragraph 7 of the agreement further provided that “[p]ursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the government and the defendant stipulate and agree” that defendant's sentence would be 144 months' imprisonment. (Id. ¶ 7). Paragraph 7 also stated: “The parties agree that this sentence is a reasonable sentence under the facts and circumstances of this case.” (Id. ¶ 7). Paragraph 10 set forth the procedure for objecting to the presentence report, including objections to sentencing guideline ranges. (Id. ¶ 10).
On June 11, 2010, a guilty-plea colloquy was held. The prosecutor stated the parties had entered into a Rule 11(c) binding plea agreement for twelve years. (Doc. 55, guilty-plea transcript at p. 2). Defendant entered a plea of guilty. As authorized under Rule 11(c)(3)(A), the court deferred accepting the plea until a presentence report (PSR) was prepared. (Id. at p. 12).
In August 2010, the PSR was prepared. It stated the following. Based on 1.4 kilograms of heroin, Defendant's base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 was 32. (PSR ¶ 30). Two points were added under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) for being an organizer or leader (PSR ¶ 33), and two points were deducted under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility. (PSR ¶ 36). This gave Defendant a total offense level of 32. With a criminal history category of III, Defendant had a sentencing guideline range of 151 to 188 months. (PSR ¶ 73).
In September 2010, Defendant was sentenced. The court stated that, after review of the PSR, it would accept the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement. (Doc. 45, sentencing transcript at ECF p. 3). Defendant was sentenced to 144 months' imprisonment. (Id., at ECF p. 4).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Federal courts have no inherent authority to modify a sentence at any time. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 819, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2687, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010)(&ldquo;A federal court generally &lsquo;may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.&#39;&rdquo;)(quoting 18 U.S.C. &sect; 3582(c)); McMillan v. United States, 257 F. App'x 477, 479 (3d Cir. 2007)(per curiam) (nonprecedential) (“We note that, as a general matter, a court cannot modify a term of imprisonment ...