United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-3726 ___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Betty Francois,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________

Submitted: July 19, 2019 Filed: July 24, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Betty Francois pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, and the district court sentenced her according to that agreement. She now appeals after the district court1 denied her renewed motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on a retroactively lowered sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines. Her motion was based on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, and relied on Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018), which clarified that plea agreements under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) do not foreclose eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) relief. In counseled and pro se briefs, Francois argues that the district court erred in denying her a sentence reduction. Appointed counsel has also moved for leave to withdraw.

We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Francois a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). First, the record shows that the sentence was not based on the Guidelines. See Hughes, 138 S. Ct. at 1775-76. Further, Amendment 782 would not afford Francois relief under section 3582(c)(2), because the amended Guidelines would have no effect on her Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), (b)(1) & comment. (n.1).

Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________

1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

-2-