United States of America v. Antoine Tucker, a/k/a LAKEEN TUCKER a/k/a “FACE” Appeal from the United States…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-2400
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellant
v.
ANTOINE TUCKER,
a/k/a LAKEEN TUCKER
a/k/a “FACE”
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 02-cr-00249-001)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 13, 2009
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 27, 2009 )
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
This appeal raises a single issue: whether a district court may reduce a defendant’s
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the statutory provision allowing a court to reduce

-- 1 of 2 --

The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We exercise1
jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
a sentence which is “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by
the Sentencing Commission,” when that sentence is imposed pursuant to a binding plea
agreement. Concluding that enforcement of the stipulated sentence was not required, the
District Court reduced defendant Antoine Tucker’s sentence; the government appealed.1
We conclusively resolved the issue in United States v. Sanchez, holding, “If ‘binding’ is
to have meaning, it cannot be undone by the discretionary possibility of a different
sentence under § 3582(c).” 562 F.3d 275, 282 (3d Cir. 2009).
Here, Tucker stipulated to the sentence imposed in a binding plea agreement under
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(c), the validity of which is undisputed. Accordingly, we will
REVERSE the order of the District Court and REMAND the case.

-- 2 of 2 --