Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms: No § 3582(c)(2) Reduction Below the Amended Guideline Range Absent Substantial Assistance; Non‑Binding Rule 11(c)(1)(B) Recommendations Do Not Control Retroactive Guideline Calculations

Introduction

This commentary examines the Eleventh Circuit’s unpublished per curiam decision summarily affirming the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) sentence‑reduction motion filed by federal prisoner Marcelo Marquise Jeter. The case arises out of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which retroactively reduces criminal history “status points” for certain defendants. Jeter sought a reduction on the theory that Amendment 821 lowered his criminal history category and, when combined with the offense level reflected in his plea agreement, produced an amended guideline range that could support a reduced sentence.

The key issues decided were:

• Whether a defendant who already received a sentence below the amended guideline range is eligible for any further reduction under § 3582(c)(2) in light of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)–(B).
• Whether a plea agreement’s non‑binding sentencing recommendations under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B) can determine the applicable or amended guideline range for § 3582(c)(2) purposes.
• Whether the government “waived” reliance on the non‑binding nature of the plea recommendations by not specifically raising that point below.

The Eleventh Circuit held that Jeter was ineligible for a reduction because his existing 186‑month sentence was already below the amended guideline range, and the exception allowing below‑range reductions applies only when the original below‑guidelines sentence resulted from a government‑filed substantial assistance motion. The court also rejected Jeter’s attempt to use his plea agreement’s recommendations to recast the guideline calculation, concluding that his plea was a non‑binding Rule 11(c)(1)(B) agreement and that the district court had adopted the Presentence Investigation Report (PSI), not the plea’s recommended offense level, when calculating the guideline range.

Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance, concluding there was no substantial question as to the outcome. The court held:

• Amendment 821 reduced Jeter’s criminal history from Category III to Category II by eliminating “status points” formerly assessed under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), because he had fewer than seven prior‑sentence points. Using the PSI’s offense level of 39, the amended advisory guideline range was 292–365 months (reduced from 324–405 months).
• Because Jeter’s actual sentence (186 months) was already below the bottom of the amended range (292 months), U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) barred further reduction. The substantial‑assistance exception in § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) did not apply.
• Jeter’s plea contained non‑binding recommendations under Rule 11(c)(1)(B), not a binding agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(C). The district court accepted the PSI’s guideline calculation (offense level 39) and later chose a 186‑month sentence; it did not adopt the plea’s recommended offense level of 32. Thus, the plea recommendations could not be used to set the amended guideline range for § 3582(c)(2) purposes.
• The government did not waive the non‑binding‑plea argument; by opposing Jeter’s motion using the PSI‑based calculations, it implicitly contested any reliance on the plea recommendations to determine the amended range.

The court therefore affirmed the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• Groendyke Transportation, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969): Authorizes summary disposition where one party’s position is clearly correct as a matter of law or the appeal is frivolous. The Eleventh Circuit treats pre‑1981 Fifth Circuit decisions as binding. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
• United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021): Establishes the standard of review—eligibility for a § 3582(c) reduction is reviewed de novo.
• United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 911–12 (11th Cir. 2021): Denials of § 3582(c) motions are reviewed for abuse of discretion; an abuse occurs if the court applies the wrong legal standard, follows improper procedures, makes clearly erroneous factual findings, or commits a clear error of judgment.
• Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 527 (2011): Addresses the application of § 3582(c)(2) to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreements (binding upon acceptance). The panel distinguishes Freeman by noting that Jeter’s plea was not a binding 11(c)(1)(C) agreement.
• 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2): Allows sentence reductions when a defendant was sentenced based on a guideline range later lowered by the Sentencing Commission, if consistent with the Commission’s policy statements.
• U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)–(B): Prohibits § 3582(c)(2) reductions below the bottom of the amended range, except to the extent of a comparable below‑range reduction where the original sentence was below the range due to a government‑filed substantial assistance motion.
• Amendment 821 (effective Nov. 1, 2023): Retroactively narrows the assessment of criminal history “status points,” now codified at U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e) (2024), eliminating them unless the defendant has seven or more prior‑sentence points.
• Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B) vs. 11(c)(1)(C): Distinguishes non‑binding recommendations (B) from binding agreements upon acceptance (C).

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in three connected steps: identifying the correct amended guideline range, applying the policy statement’s reduction limits, and rejecting the plea‑based theory that would reframe the guideline calculation.

1) The amended guideline range must be recalculated from the original, court‑adopted guideline findings—not from non‑binding plea recommendations

The district court at the original sentencing adopted the PSI and calculated Jeter’s offense level at 39 with Criminal History Category III, producing a 324–405 month range. Amendment 821 made the criminal history calculation more lenient by removing “status points” for defendants with fewer than seven prior‑sentence points; that change reduced Jeter’s criminal history category to II. Combining offense level 39 with Category II yields a new advisory range of 292–365 months.

Crucially, § 3582(c)(2) and § 1B1.10 look to the “applicable guideline range” as determined by the sentencing court’s guideline findings. The panel emphasizes that Jeter’s plea agreement explicitly stated its recommendations were not binding on the probation office or the court, and the district court confirmed as much at sentencing. The court adopted the PSI, not the plea’s recommended offense level of 32. Because the guideline determination at sentencing controls the § 3582(c)(2) framework, the amended range must be built from those accepted findings, not from the plea’s suggested figures.

2) The § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) bar on reductions below the amended range forecloses relief here

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) provides that, when granting a reduction under § 3582(c)(2), the court may not reduce a sentence to a term less than the minimum of the amended guideline range. The lone exception in § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) permits a comparable below‑range reduction if, and only if, the original below‑guideline sentence resulted from a government‑filed motion for substantial assistance.

Jeter’s sentence—186 months—was already far below the amended range’s floor (292 months). His below‑range sentence did not stem from a substantial assistance motion. Thus, even assuming every other precondition of § 3582(c)(2) were met, § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) categorically bars any further reduction.

3) The plea agreement does not transform the analysis

Jeter argued that, because the district court ultimately adopted the plea’s recommended 186‑month sentence, the court also implicitly adopted the plea’s recommended offense level and guideline range. The panel rejects this on two grounds:

• The plea agreement was a Rule 11(c)(1)(B) agreement, explicitly non‑binding. The district court confirmed at sentencing that it was not bound by the recommended offense level or sentence. The court then adopted the PSI’s guideline calculation—offense level 39—before deciding on the appropriate sentence.
• Freeman is inapposite because it concerns binding 11(c)(1)(C) agreements. Jeter’s agreement was not binding, and the record showed the court did not adopt the plea’s offense‑level calculation.

As a result, the applicable and amended ranges are those derived from the PSI’s guideline findings, not from the plea recommendations.

4) No waiver by the government

Jeter also asserted that the government waived its non‑binding‑plea argument by failing to raise it below. The panel disagrees. Jeter’s motion did not squarely assert that the plea recommendations were binding; it simply posited an amended range using offense level 32. By responding with the PSI‑based amended range (offense level 39; Category II), the government implicitly contested any reliance on the plea’s recommendations to set the amended range. There was therefore no waiver.

Impact and Implications

This decision (though unpublished and non‑precedential) underscores several practical and doctrinal points that will resonate across Amendment 821 litigation in the Eleventh Circuit:

• The “already below the amended range” bar: Many defendants who received substantial variances or non‑assistance departures at the original sentencing will be categorically ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief if their current sentence is below the amended range’s floor. The substantial‑assistance exception is narrow and requires a government motion at the original sentencing (e.g., U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1) or Rule 35(b) post‑sentencing assistance.
• Non‑binding plea recommendations do not control guideline calculations: Rule 11(c)(1)(B) recommendations, even when embraced by the sentencing court as an appropriate sentence, do not set the “applicable guideline range” for § 3582(c)(2). The operative figures are those the court actually adopted at sentencing—usually the PSI‑based offense level and criminal history category.
• Amendment 821 recalculations are limited: While Amendment 821 can lower criminal history categories by eliminating “status points” for defendants with fewer than seven prior‑sentence points, relief under § 3582(c)(2) remains constrained by § 1B1.10’s floor rule. Defendants must compare their current sentence with the amended range’s bottom; if the current sentence is already lower, relief is foreclosed absent substantial assistance.
• Preserving issues and framing arguments: Litigants should expressly address whether their plea agreements are Rule 11(c)(1)(B) or 11(c)(1)(C), and tie their § 3582(c)(2) arguments to the court’s adopted guideline findings. Government responses that compute amended ranges from the PSI implicitly contest any reliance on non‑binding recommendations.
• Efficient disposition via summary affirmance: The court’s use of Groendyke indicates that where the § 1B1.10(b)(2) bar squarely applies, appeals will be resolved summarily, conserving judicial resources and uniformly enforcing the Sentencing Commission’s policy constraints.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Section 3582(c)(2) sentence reductions: A limited mechanism allowing courts to reduce a previously imposed sentence when the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowers a guideline range. Reductions must comply with the Commission’s policy statements (notably § 1B1.10).
• U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2) floor rule: When granting a § 3582(c)(2) reduction, courts cannot reduce a sentence below the minimum of the amended guideline range, unless the original below‑range sentence was based on a government‑filed substantial assistance motion. In that event, courts may reduce comparably below the amended range.
• Amendment 821 and “status points”: Previously, two criminal history “status points” were added if a defendant committed an offense while under a criminal justice sentence (probation, parole, etc.). Amendment 821 (now § 4A1.1(e) (2024)) eliminates those points unless the defendant already has seven or more prior‑sentence points, reducing criminal history for many defendants.
• PSI (Presentence Investigation Report): A report prepared by probation that calculates the guideline offense level and criminal history, which the court may adopt after resolving objections. Those adopted findings typically define the “applicable guideline range” for § 3582(c)(2) purposes.
• Rule 11(c)(1)(B) vs. Rule 11(c)(1)(C):
  • 11(c)(1)(B): The parties’ sentencing recommendations do not bind the court. Even if the court imposes the recommended sentence, it has not bound itself to the plea’s guideline computations.
  • 11(c)(1)(C): If the court accepts the plea, the agreed‑upon sentence binds the court. Different eligibility questions arise in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings for binding pleas.
• Summary affirmance: An appellate disposition without full briefing or oral argument when a party’s position is clearly correct as a matter of law or the appeal is frivolous.
• Standards of review:
  • Eligibility for a § 3582(c) reduction: de novo review.
  • Denial of a § 3582(c) motion: abuse of discretion (incorrect legal standards, improper procedures, clearly erroneous facts, or clear errors of judgment).
• Waiver vs. implicit contest: A party can implicitly preserve an argument by framing its response in a way that squarely opposes the other side’s premise—in this case, the government’s PSI‑based amended range implicitly rejected any reliance on non‑binding plea recommendations.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Jeter reinforces two bedrock principles in retroactive guideline litigation: (1) § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) generally prohibits courts from reducing a sentence below the floor of the amended guideline range, with a narrow exception for original sentences below the range based on government‑filed substantial assistance; and (2) non‑binding plea recommendations under Rule 11(c)(1)(B) do not define the applicable or amended guideline range for § 3582(c)(2) purposes, even if the sentencing court ultimately imposed the recommended term.

For defendants seeking relief under Amendment 821, the operative question is whether the amended guideline range—calculated from the court’s adopted guideline findings at the original sentencing—has a lower floor than the sentence currently being served. If the current sentence is already below that floor and no substantial assistance exception applies, § 1B1.10 closes the door to further reduction. While unpublished, Jeter offers a clear, pragmatic application of these principles and will serve as persuasive guidance within the Eleventh Circuit for the many pro se and counseled Amendment 821 motions now working their way through the courts.