New Jersey & New York Legal Defense
Third Circuit Opinion: United States v. Martin Providing Innovative Solutions & Obtaining Optimal Results
Legal

Third Circuit Opinion: United States v. Martin

In United States v. Martin, No. 16-4289 (3d Cir. Aug. 15, 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a defendant who was determined to be a career offender was ineligible for a reduced sentence under a Sentencing Guidelines amendment. Martin pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(C), to possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. The plea agreement stipulated an advisory guideline range of 70 to 87 months imprisonment and a sentence of 87 months. Prior to sentencing, the Pre-Sentence Report determined that Martin was a career offender based on his criminal record, and accordingly that his advisory guideline range was 188-235 months. The sentencing court agreed with the PSR report but also accepted the R. 11(c)(1)(C) plea and imposed a sentence of 87 months pursuant to the agreement.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission later promulgated Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which retroactively lowered the offense levels for many drug quantities, including Martin’s. Martin filed a motion for a new sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), which the District Court denied. Martin appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that his guideline range was 70-87 months as per his plea agreement, which should have been lowered to 57-71 months under the Amendment. Martin’s appeal relied on Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011), in which the Supreme Court held that a R. 11(c)(1)(C) plea was eligible for a sentence reduction under §3582 if the plea agreement “expressly uses a Guidelines sentencing range applicable to the charged offense.”

The Court distinguished Martin’s case from Freeman, which did not involve the question of career offender status. It cited cases from two other Circuits, United States v. Leonard, 844 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2016), and United States v. Pleasant, 704 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2013), both of which held that when a court accepts a R. 11(c)(1)(C) plea, it effectively grants a departure or variance from an otherwise applicable Guideline sentence. Those cases comport with Third Circuit cases finding that “applicable guideline ranges” prior to Guideline Amendments to be career offender ranges. Thus the Court held that the “applicable guideline range” in Martin’s case was the career offender range, 188-235 months. Because that range had not been lowered by an Amendment to the Guidelines, the Court ruled, Martin was ineligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to §3582(c)(2).

Categories

What Makes Us Different?

  • Proactive Representation

    We are dedicated to protecting your rights and fighting for your freedom.

  • Innovative Approach

    We provide innovative, personalized solutions to best fit your needs.

  • Free Consultation

    We believe nobody should have to pay when looking to hire an attorney.

  • Premier Boutique Law Firm

    We handle the most serious and complex white-collar, state and federal crimes.

Practicing in New Jersey & New York for Over 35 Years

Real People, Real Stories

  • “Jack represented me in a criminal case brought by the State of New Jersey, Division of Justice, Corruption bureau. The OAG spent five years preparing their case, so when they declared my employer and ...”

    - Paul
  • “Jack Arseneault was a beacon of hope to my family and I at a time when my options appeared limited back in 2011. I pretty much would of been behind bars without a doubt if it wasn’t for him. Not only ...”

    - Dominique
  • “My brother was facing criminal charges which were a result of identity theft. My friend suggests me to contact Arseneault & Fassett, LLP. I had discussed my brother cases with their professional team ...”

    - Mark J.
  • “My experience with Arseneault & Fassett, LLP was exceptional: they were knowledgeable and professional. Their staff is experienced and give you the best solution for your problem. We were very ...”

    - Charlize J.
  • “I hired Jack to defend me in a criminal case brought against me by the Federal Government. Jack worked tirelessly for me for over four years which resulted in a positive outcome that I believe would ...”

    - Frank
/

Results That Matter

  • Licensing Offenses No-Suspension Resolution
  • Second-Degree Insurance Fraud Diversionary Dismissal
  • Federal Criminal Charges Immunity
  • Opioid Offenses Dismissed
  • Narcotics Distribution and Assault Dismissed
  • Narcotics Distribution And Assault Dismissed
  • Narcotics Distribution Noncustodial Probationary Sentences
  • Second-Degree Weapons and Assault Diversionary Dismissal
  • Second-Degree Computer Fraud Diversionary Dismissal
  • Theft Offenses Noncustodial Sentence
/

Build A Strong Defense Today

Request a Free Evaluation with Our Powerhouse Team
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.