Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-8-2009
USA v. Tommy Clayborn
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2617
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Tommy Clayborn" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1565.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1565
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-2617
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
TOMMY LEE CLAYBORN,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 1-05-CR-00051-001
District Judge: The Honorable William W. Caldwell
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 29, 2009
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, AMBRO, and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 8, 2009)
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Tommy Lee Clayborn appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we
exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm.
Clayborn pleaded guilty in March of 2006 to conspiring to possess with the intent to
distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Although the indictment charged him
with conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine, the
government agreed in paragraph 1 of the Plea Agreement “not to invoke that amount and will not
require [Clayborn] to plead to a specific amount of crack cocaine.” Paragraph 11 of the Plea
Agreement provided that
Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
government and the defendant stipulate and agree to the following regarding the
defendant’s sentence: Notwithstanding any Guideline calculation or prior
conviction, the defendant and the United States agree that the defendant shall
receive a sentence of 20 years imprisonment . . . .
As a result of these provisions of the Plea Agreement, the statutory maximum penalty of life
imprisonment and the minimum of ten years of imprisonment for the § 846 conspiracy charge no
longer applied. Instead, as agreed by the parties, Clayborn faced an agreed upon 20 year sentence
under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).
At sentencing on January 23, 2006, consistent with the Plea Agreement and Rule
11(c)(1)(C), the District Court imposed a sentence of 240 months of imprisonment. Clayborn
appealed, challenging the reasonableness of his sentence. We affirmed the District Court’s
judgment, citing paragraph 11 of the Plea Agreement, Rule 11(c)(1)(C), and our precedent in
United States v. Bernard, 373 F.3d 339 (3d Cir. 2004), which instructs that “[o]nce the District
Court has accepted [a Rule 11(c)(1)(C)] agreement, it is binding.” Id. at 344.
Thereafter, when the Sentencing Guidelines were amended in 2007 to decrease the
offense levels for crack cocaine offenses,1 Clayborn moved for a reduction of sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which permits such a motion for a “defendant who has been sentenced to a
1
Amendment 706 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, § 2D1.1 (2007).
2
term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The District Court denied the motion,
explaining that § 3582(c)(2) was inapplicable as Clayborn’s sentence was based on a Rule
11(c)(1)(C) Plea Agreement that provided for a specific sentence of 20 years.
Clayborn appealed. He contends the District Court erred by denying the motion because
§ 3582(c)(2) does not preclude a reduction of his sentence as it was based on a sentencing range
of 235 to 240 months.2 He relies upon the Fourth Circuit’s majority opinion in United States v.
Dews, 551 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2008). Subsequent to the briefing in this appeal, however, we
agreed with the dissent in Dews and concluded that relief under § 3582(c)(2) is not available for a
defendant who has been sentenced pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) binding plea agreement.
United States v. Sanchez, ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 878189, *4, *5 n.7 (3d Cir. April 3, 2009).
Accordingly, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
2
Because this presents a legal question, we exercise plenary review. United States v.
Sanchez, __ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 878189, *2 (3d Cir. April 3, 2009); see also United
States v. Dews, 551 F.3d 204, 208 (4th Cir. 2008).
3