United States v. Mauriosantana Cowan

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 19-1728
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Mauriosantana Cowan
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport
____________
Submitted: October 17, 2019
Filed: October 24, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Mauriosantana Paul Cowan pled guilty pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement containing a waiver of the right to file a motion
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He now appeals after the district court1 denied his
renewed section 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence under Guidelines
Amendment 782, which lowered the base offense levels for certain drug offenses.
Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Counsel has moved to withdraw and has submitted a brief which acknowledges
that the plea agreement contained a waiver of the right to seek section 3582(c)(2)
relief, but challenges the voluntariness of that waiver and argues that Cowan is
eligible for a sentence reduction.
This court concludes that the record shows Cowan knowingly and voluntarily
agreed to the section 3582(c)(2) waiver. Cf. United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702,
704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver);
United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver
will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and
voluntarily entered into waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing waiver would not
result in miscarriage of justice). As the section 3582(c)(2) waiver is valid, this court
concludes that the district court did not err in denying Cowan’s renewed motion. See
Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 541 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the
judgment) (if government wants to ensure that defendant’s term of imprisonment will
not be reduced, it can negotiate with defendant to waive right to seek sentence
reduction under § 3582(c)(2)). This court has previously determined that Amendment
782 would not afford Cowan relief under section 3582(c)(2), because his Guidelines
range was calculated based upon his status as a career offender. See United States v.
Cowan, No. 17-3105 (8th Cir. May 24, 2018); 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);
1
The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
-2-
see also United States v. Betcher, 534 F.3d 820, 823-24 (8th Cir. 2008) (“[I]t is a
cardinal rule in our circuit that one panel is bound by the decision of a prior panel.”)
(citation omitted).
The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-3-