Tommy Lee CLAYBORN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.Case below, 322 Fed.Appx. 99. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Most recently, in United States v. Sanchez, 562 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2009), this Court "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. Clayborn, 322 Fed.Appx. 99, 100 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Sanchez, 562 F.3d at 282 n. 7). In so ruling, the Court addressed "conflicting signals in the record" as to whether the sentencing guidelines influenced the sentence imposed, stating "[w]here, as here, the District Court accepted a so-called 'C' plea, the answer is simple: the sentence is based on the terms expressly agreed on by the defendant and the government.
Other courts have issued similar opinions.See e.g. United States v. Scurlark, 560 F.3d 839, 841-843 (8th Cir. 2009) (relying in part on Peveler); United States v. Bride, 581 F.3d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Keith, 328 Fed. Appx. 112, 114-116 (3rd Cir. 2009); United States v. Clayborn, 322 Fed. Appx. 99, 100 (3rd Cir. 2009); United States v. Gage, 315 Fed. Appx. 48, 50-53 (10th Cir. 2009); United States v. Hines, 2008 WL 2169516 at **2-3 (E.D. Tenn. May 22, 2008). Based on these cases, the Court finds that it does not have authority to grant Batts a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) due to Amendment 706 because he agreed to a specific sentence in his binding plea agreement with the Government, which the Court accepted and followed.
So too, have the majority of federal courts to have considered the question.See, e.g., United States v. Scurlark, 560 F.3d 839, 841 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Clayborn, No. 08-2617, ___ Fed. Appx. ___, ___, 2009 WL 929945, *1 (3d Cir. Apr. 8, 2009); United States v. Grigsby, 560 F.Supp.2d 1066, 1067-68 (D.Colo. 2008); United States v. Johnson, No. 05-40107-01-RDR, 2008 WL 4758581, *1 (D.Kan. Oct. 27, 2008); United States v. Fonville, No. 01-1015-LRR, 2008 WL 2953610, *2 (N.D.Iowa July 29, 2008); United States v. Tindall, No. 04-00031-2, 2008 WL 2518546, *1 (W.D.Va. June 19, 2008); United States v. Arroyo, No. 97-1146-ILG, 2008 WL 2497430, *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2008); United States v. Clayborn, No. 05-51-01, 2008 WL 2229531, *2 (M.D.Pa. May 28, 2008); United States v. Gordon, No. 97-24-FHS, 2008 WL 901911, *1 (E.D.Okla. Mar. 31, 2008). While some other recent decisions have granted this type of motion, see, e.g., United States v. Dews, 551 F.3d 204, 208-10 (4th Cir. 2008), the Court finds the minority position unpersuasive and contrary to its prior decision.