NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 15-2690
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RANDALE CHAPMAN,
Appellant
________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-11-cr-00045-007)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 12, 2016
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 8, 2016)
________________
OPINION*
________________
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Randale Chapman appeals the order of the District Court denying his motion for a
sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and contends that he is eligible for
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
such a reduction because his sentence is based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines.
For the reasons stated below, we affirm the order of the District Court.
Chapman was arrested in Pittsburgh and charged with conspiracy to distribute one
kilogram or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, possession with intent to
distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In October 2012, Chapman reached a written plea agreement with
the Government pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) (a “C plea”).
He agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to distribute less than 100 grams of heroin and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. In return, the
Government agreed that a fixed sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment was appropriate
and that all remaining charges would be dismissed. The plea agreement also contained a
stipulation that Chapman was responsible for 80 to 100 grams of heroin for purposes of
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.
A Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) calculated Chapman’s Guidelines range for the
conspiracy charge as 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment based on a total offense level of 22
and a criminal history category of II. The PSR also noted that Chapman was subject to a
60-month mandatory minimum consecutive sentence for possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. At sentencing, the District Court adopted the
PSR and imposed an aggregate sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment (57 months for
2
conspiracy to distribute heroin charge and 63 months for possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime).
In 2014, the United States Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 782, which
amends U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to reduce the base offense level for most drug offenses by two
levels. Amendment 782 applies retroactively, allowing defendants whose sentence was
based on the pre-amendment text of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to file a motion for a reduction in
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Chapman filed such a motion in the District
Court, arguing that Amendment 782 reduced his Guidelines range to 37 to 46 months’
imprisonment. The District Court denied Chapman’s motion on the ground that he is not
eligible for a sentence reduction, as his sentence was not based on the Guidelines. This
appeal followed.1
In order to be eligible for a sentence reduction, Chapman’s initial sentence of 120
months must have been based on the Sentencing Guidelines. See Weatherspoon, 696
F.3d at 422 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). “[T]o be eligible for relief under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), a defendant who agrees to a specific term of imprisonment in a (C) plea
agreement must show that his agreement both identifies a Guidelines range and
demonstrates a sufficient link between that range and the recommended sentence.” Id. at
423. “Failure to meet either requirement is fatal to a defendant’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.”
Id. In deciding whether Chapman has met this burden, our inquiry is limited to the four
corners of the plea agreement. Id. at 422.
1
The District Court exercised jurisdiction over Chapman’s § 3582(c)(2) motion pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and we exercise appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Our review is de novo. United States v. Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 416, 420 (3d Cir. 2012).
3
Although Chapman’s plea agreement does not expressly state the applicable
Guidelines range, he argues that two passages in the agreement demonstrate that it is
nonetheless based on the Guidelines. First, he points to the plea agreement’s
representation that he “will be sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act.” This is true
of all C pleas, however, as district courts are required to calculate the Guidelines range in
deciding whether to accept a C plea. See U.S.S.G. § 6B1.2. Second, Chapman argues
that his total offense level may be inferred from the stipulation that he is responsible for
80 to 100 grams of heroin for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. But even if we could infer
Chapman’s total offense level from this information, we would still be unable to identify
the applicable Guidelines range because the agreement does not also specify Chapman’s
criminal history category. See Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d at 424 (“The Guidelines range
can only be derived from a determination of a defendant’s criminal history category and
his offense level. Here, we are missing at least one-half of the equation.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s order because Chapman’s sentence
was not based on the Guidelines and he is not eligible for a reduction in sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2).
4