Opinion
No. 17-10249
10-29-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GABRIEL CARACHEO, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00248-WBS MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Gabriel Caracheo appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
Caracheo contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014, 1019 n.6 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Because Caracheo was sentenced after the district court accepted the parties' Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, he is not eligible for relief under section 3582(c)(2) unless "the district court's decision to accept the plea and impose the recommended sentence was based on the Guidelines." Id. at 1027 (internal quotations omitted).
The Supreme Court recently clarified that "a sentence imposed pursuant to a Type-C agreement is 'based on' the defendant's Guidelines range so long as that range was part of the framework the district court relied on in imposing the sentence or accepting the agreement." Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765, 1775 (2018). The district court in this case did not have the benefit of Hughes when it denied Caracheo's motion; therefore, we vacate its order denying relief and remand. On remand, the district court shall determine whether Caracheo is eligible for a sentence reduction under Hughes and, if so, whether he should receive a reduction in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010).
VACATED and REMANDED.