No. 2:11-CR-02516-WJ-1) (D. N.M.)
MATHESON, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
M. MATHESON, JR. CIRCUIT JUDGE
Lugo Madrid pled guilty to a federal drug crime and was
sentenced to 144 months in prison and four years of
supervised release. He appeals the district court's
denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). His appointed counsel has submitted an
Anders brief stating the appeal presents no
non-frivolous grounds for reversal. After careful review of
the record, we agree. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and
we dismiss the appeal.
Conviction and Sentence
Madrid was indicted for possessing with intent to distribute
50 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). He
pled guilty and signed a plea agreement under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). The parties agreed that
"[p]ursuant to [United States Sentencing Guidelines
("U.S.S.G." or "Guidelines")] §
2D1.1(c), . . . [Mr. Madrid] is responsible for approximately
one hundred seventeen (117) grams of a mixture and substance
of methamphetamine." ROA at 5. They also agreed to a
sentencing, the district court calculated Mr. Madrid's
advisory Guidelines sentence range. Although the drug
quantity stipulated in the plea agreement would have yielded
a base offense level of 26, see supra note 1,
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 sets higher base offense levels for
defendants who qualify as "career
offenders." That Guideline also states that "if
the offense level [provided in § 4B1.1] is greater than
the offense level otherwise applicable, the offense level
from [§ 4B1.1] shall apply." U.S.S.G. §
4B1.1(b). The district court found that Mr. Madrid qualified
as a career offender and, applying § 4B1.1, set his base
offense level at 34. It then subtracted three levels for
acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense
level of 31. The court placed Mr. Madrid in Criminal History
Category VI because of his career offender status and
calculated a resulting Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months.
court acknowledged that the 144-month sentence stipulated in
the plea agreement "accord[ed] the defendant
approximately two years' reduction from what would
otherwise be the low end of the [G]uidelines," Dist. Ct.
Doc. 37 at 2, but found that the agreement "depart[ed]
[from the recommended Guidelines range] for justifiable
reasons," id. at 6. It thus accepted the plea
agreement and sentenced Mr. Madrid to the agreed-upon 144
Motions to Reduce Sentence
years after Mr. Madrid was sentenced, the United States
Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 782, reducing the
base offense levels listed in the Drug Quantity Table in
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). See U.S.S.G. Supp. to App.
C, Amend. 782, 788.
Madrid moved to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2), which allows federal courts to reduce a sentence
if the defendant's term of imprisonment was "based
on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by
the Sentencing Commission." He argued that if Amendment
782 had been in effect at the time of his sentencing, his
base offense level under § 2D1.1(c) would have been 24
rather than 26. Combined with his Criminal History Category
of VI, this would have yielded a Guidelines range of 100 to
125 months. Mr. Madrid therefore requested that the district
court reduce his sentence to 100 months.
district court dismissed Mr. Madrid's motion for lack of
jurisdiction. It found that "Mr. Madrid's advisory
Guideline range was a product of his career offender status,
and his . . . sentencing range of 188 to 235 months was . . .
a result of his career offender status alone and not related
to the quantity or purity of the methamphetamine
involved." ROA at 101. Because Amendment 782 did not
modify the career offender Guideline, it had no effect on his
advisory sentencing range. The court thus concluded that Mr.
Madrid was "statutorily ineligible for consideration for
a reduced sentence under § 3582(c)(2)."
years after the district court denied Mr. Madrid's
motion, the Supreme Court decided Hughes v. United
States, 138 S.Ct. 1765 (2018). As discussed above,
§ 3582(c)(2) applies only if the challenged sentence is
"based on" a Guidelines sentencing range that was
subsequently lowered. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Hughes clarified that Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea
agreements are "based on" a Guidelines range-and
therefore eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief-if the
advisory Guidelines range "was part of the framework the
district court relied on in imposing the sentence or
accepting the agreement." 138 S.Ct. at 1775. Because
"the Sentencing Guidelines prohibit district courts from
accepting [Rule 11(c)(1)(C)] agreements without first
evaluating . . . the defendant's Guidelines range,"
the Court held that "in the usual case . . . the
sentence to be imposed pursuant to [a Rule 11(c)(1)(C)]
agreement [is] 'based on' the defendant's
Guidelines range." Id. at 1776. But if the
record clearly indicates that the "Guidelines range was
not a relevant part of analytic framework the ...