Opinion ID: 182907
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reduction in sentence based on amendment to Sentencing Guidelines

Text: Polly also argues that his sentence should be modified because the United States Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines in 2008 to provide for a lower offense level when an offense involves cocaine base and another controlled substance. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 app. n. 10(D)(i). According to Polly, this falls outside the scope of the appeal waiver because, in light of this amendment, Polly's sentence is above the Guideline range that would apply if he were sentenced today. ( See Plea Agreement at 9 (stating that waiver of right to challenge sentence applies, provided the sentence is within or below the advisory guideline range determined by the Court to apply to this case).) [5] This argument is contradicted by the plain terms of the waiver. The waiver explicitly waives his right to [a]ppeal, collaterally challenge, or move to modify under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) or some other ground, his sentence as imposed by the Court and the manner in which the sentence is determined, provided the sentence is within or below the advisory guideline range determined by the Court to apply to this case. (Plea Agreement at 9.) Polly does not dispute, nor can he, that his sentence was within the guideline range determined by the Court to apply to this case. ( Id. ) The waiver does not contemplate permitting a court to reassess what guideline range would apply if the defendant was sentenced today, and instead looks only at the guideline range that the district court actually applied. See United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d 163, 180 n. 9 (2d Cir.2008) (Where a defendant sentenced pursuant to the former crack Guidelines has waived his right to appeal . . . the amended Guidelines [do not] constitute grounds for finding that appeal waiver unenforceable. (quotations, alteration omitted)). Accordingly, this argument falls within the scope of the appeal waiver. Polly does not claim that he did not knowingly and voluntarily agree to the waiver, nor that enforcement of the waiver on this ground would constitute a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, Polly's appeal waiver applies to bar this claim.