United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
William W. Caldwell, United States District Judge.
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.
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
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
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
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).
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).
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).
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).
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)(“A
federal court generally ‘may not modify a term of
imprisonment once it has been imposed.'”)(quoting
18 U.S.C. § 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 ...