United States v. Cowan, No. 17-3105 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence under Guidelines Amendment 782. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion because his plea agreement explicitly waived the right to seek section 3582(c)(2) relief. Furthermore, defendant was not entitled to relief because he was sentenced as a career offender, not drug quantities.

Court Description: Per Curiam. Before Loken, Colloton, and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Motion for Reduction of Sentence. District court did not err in denying motion for reduction because plea agreement waived right to seek relief under 18 U.S.C. sec. 3582(c)(2); moreover Cowan is not entitled to relief because he was sentenced as a career offender, not drug quantities.

Download PDF

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’s1 denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence under Guidelines Amendment 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 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 262327 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-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.