MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE

F. DENNIS SAYLOR, IV, District Judge.

Defendant Luis Cruz pleaded guilty in November 2012 to drug and conspiracy charges and was sentenced to a term of 96 months imprisonment. Cruz now seeks a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in light of Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. For the reasons stated below, Cruz's motion for a sentence reduction will be denied.

I. Background

On November 30, 2012, Cruz pleaded guilty to a five-count indictment charging him with conspiracy to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Cruz's plea was entered pursuant to a written plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).1

In that agreement, Cruz and the government jointly agreed that Cruz's base offense level was 26, subject to a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. (Plea Agreement ¶ 4). The government agreed not to file an information under 21 U.S.C. § 851, which would have subjected Cruz to a mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months. (Id. ¶ 1). In return, Cruz agreed to a sentence of incarceration for 96 months, 48 months of supervised release, and a mandatory special assessment of $500. (Id. ¶ 5).

On March 6, 2013, this Court accepted the plea agreement and imposed the agreed-upon sentence of 96 months' imprisonment. (Sentencing Tr. 3).

On November 4, 2014, Cruz filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.2

II. Analysis

A defendant who has been sentenced pursuant to a binding plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) is eligible for a sentence reduction when "the agreement itself expressly indicates that the term of imprisonment is based on a guideline sentencing range that has subsequently been reduced by the Sentencing Commission." United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 665 F.3d 344, 348 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing Freeman v. U.S., 131 S.Ct. 2685, 2695 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). When determining whether an agreed sentence is "based on" a guideline sentencing range, "it is the terms contained within the four corners of the plea agreement that matter." Rivera-Martinez, 665 F.3d at 349 (citing Freeman, 131 S. Ct. at 2697-98). In Rivera-Martinez, the First Circuit found that where the plea agreement at issue did not calculate a guideline range and did not include any information about the defendant's criminal history, it was "impossible to conclude" that the sentence agreed to in the plea was based on a guideline sentencing range.

A review of the plea agreement in Cruz's case indicates that it is little different from the one at issue in Rivera-Martinez. Like that agreement, Cruz's plea agreement does not contain any information as to Cruz's criminal history, nor does it attempt to calculate a guideline sentencing range for his offenses. In particular, without including a criminal history category, Cruz's plea agreement is devoid of an "essential coordinate" necessary to conclude that the agreed sentence was "based on" a guideline range. Rivera-Martinez, 665 F.3d at 349.

Thus, because Cruz's plea agreement did not "expressly use[] a [g]uidelines sentencing range . . . to establish the term of imprisonment," Cruz is not eligible for a sentence reduction under 21 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is DENIED.

So Ordered.