United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
June 10, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DARRON A. WEBB (01)
OPINION AND ORDER
JON E. DEGUILIO Judge
Now before the Court is a letter from the Defendant Darron A. Webb, in which he requests a sentence reduction under the retroactive amendment to the drug quantity tables, and requests appointment of counsel. However, Mr. Webb is ineligible for such a reduction for at least two different reasons. First, Mr. Webb was already sentenced using the revised version of the Guidelines Manual, so he has already received the benefit of the across-the-board reduction to the drug quantity tables. His sentencing was on April 16, 2015, and as indicated in the Presentence Report, the 2014 Guidelines Manual, which incorporates the drug quantity amendments, was used to calculate his advisory guideline sentencing range. Mr. Webb’s base offense level was therefore 28 instead of 30, as it would have been prior to the amendment. Thus, having already received the benefit of this amendment, Mr. Webb is entitled to no further reduction in his sentence on that basis.
Second, Mr. Webb is ineligible for any reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because he entered a binding plea agreement, which the Court accepted. In his plea agreement, Mr. Webb agreed to a sentence of imprisonment of 10 years, and the Court was bound to sentence Mr. Webb to that term if it accepted his plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). “A defendant who agrees to a specific sentence in a plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) generally is not eligible to receive a reduced sentence under § 3582(c)(2) because that statute does not grant relief for sentences based not on a guidelines range, but on an agreed term.” United States v. Scott, 711 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 2013). Mr. Webb falls in that category, and is therefore not eligible for any reduction under § 3582(c)(2).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mr. Webb’s motion for a sentence reduction and for appointment of counsel. [DE 88].