Free Order on Motion to Reduce Sentence re Crack Cocaine Offense - 18:3582 - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00023-ZLW

Document 197

Filed 06/06/2008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Zita L. Weinshienk Criminal Action No. 01-cr-00023-ZLW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1. FARIS LEE CARTER, Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ The matter before the Court is Defendant's Motion To Modify Sentence Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The United States Attorney responded to this motion on May 23, 2008. The Court has determined that the matter can be decided on the parties' briefs and that a hearing is not necessary.1 On June 11, 2002, Defendant entered into a plea agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(1)(C)2 in which he pled guilty to Count One of the Indictment, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base ("crack cocaine"), in violation of

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(4) (defendant need not be present for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)).
2

1

Now contained in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c).

Case 1:01-cr-00023-ZLW

Document 197

Filed 06/06/2008

Page 2 of 3

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii) and Title 18, U.S. Code § 2.3 As part of the plea agreement, the parties stipulated to a sentence of 120 months pursuant to Rule 11(e)(1)(C).4 At the sentencing hearing on April 30, 2003, the Court accepted the plea agreement and imprisoned Defendant for 120 months.5 Defendant now asks for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) as the sentencing ranges for certain crack cocaine offenders have recently been lowered. As in all cases, the Court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to grant Defendant's requested relief. "[F]ederal courts lack jurisdiction to review a Rule 11(e)(1)(C) sentence when a prisoner claims that his Rule 11(e)(1)(C) sentence is greater than the sentence range specified in the applicable guidelines."6 Defendant's sentence in the present case was determined based on the explicit terms contained in a valid Rule 11(e)(1)(C) plea agreement, not "based on a sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission."7 Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Defendant's motion.8 Accordingly, it is
3

Plea Agreement Pursuant To Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(1)(c) And Statement Of Facts Relevant To Sentencing (Doc. No. 92; June 11, 2002); Indictment (Doc. No. 1; Jan. 24, 2001); Change Of Plea Mins. (Doc. No. 100 ; June 11, 2002).
4

Plea Agreement at 6. April 30, 2003, Sentencing Minutes. United States v. Trujeque, 100 F.3d 869, 870 (10th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Id. at 871 (citation omitted). Id.; see also United States v. Olvera-Garcia, 2003 WL 734209, *2 (10th Cir. March 5, 2003).

5

6

7

8

2

Case 1:01-cr-00023-ZLW

Document 197

Filed 06/06/2008

Page 3 of 3

ORDERED that Defendant's Motion To Modify Sentence Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Doc. No. 176). is denied. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion To Supplement Sentence Modification Brief (Doc. No. 180) is granted. DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 6th day of June, 2008.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________ ZITA L. WEINSHIENK, Senior Judge United States District Court

3