United States of America v. Jose Perez-Cordero

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-1809
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOSE PEREZ-CORDERO,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 06-cr-00184-001)
District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley
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
a sentence which is “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by

-- 1 of 2 --

The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We exercise1
jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1291.
Perez-Cordero also contends that the District Court should have conducted a2
hearing on whether a sentence reduction was appropriate under § 3582(c)(2). Because a
sentence reduction was not permissible here, Perez-Cordero suffered no prejudice from
the District Court’s refusal to hold a hearing.
2
the Sentencing Commission,” when that sentence is imposed pursuant to a binding plea
agreement. The District Court concluded that enforcement of the stipulated sentence was
mandatory; defendant Jose Perez-Cordero appealed. We conclusively resolved the issue1
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, Perez-Cordero 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.2
Accordingly, we will AFFIRM the order of the District Court.

-- 2 of 2 --