United States of America v. Mauriosantana Cowan

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-3105
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Mauriosantana Cowan
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
____________
Submitted: May 16, 2018
Filed: May 24, 2018
[Published]
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Federal inmate Mauriosantana Cowan appeals the district court’s denial of his1
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence under Guidelines Amendment
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the1
Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

782, which lowered the base offense levels for certain drug offenses. His counsel has
moved to withdraw and has submitted a brief arguing that the 300-month sentence the
parties agreed to in Cowan’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement was based
upon the presentence report’s (PSR) calculated Guidelines sentencing range of 262-
327 months. Cowan has filed a pro se supplemental brief.
We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Cowan’s motion
because his plea agreement explicitly waived the right to seek section 3582(c)(2)
relief. See Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 541 (2011) (Sotomayor, J.,
concurring) (government may ensure that defendant’s term of imprisonment will not
be reduced by negotiating with defendant to waive right to seek sentence reduction
under § 3582(c)(2)); United States v. Bailey, 820 F.3d 325, 328 (8th Cir. 2016)
(Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion in Freeman is controlling and represents
holding of the Court). In any event, Amendment 782 would not afford Cowan relief
under section 3582(c)(2), because the PSR’s Guidelines range was calculated under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based upon Cowan’s status as career offender, not drug quantities.
See United States v. Thomas, 775 F.3d 982, 983 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)
(defendant was not entitled to sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because it
did not lower career-offender Guidelines range).
Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --