Case: 19-12025 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-12025
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:97-cr-06007-FAM-5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARC VALME,
a.k.a. Palmis
a.k.a. Palmiste,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 5, 2020)
Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 19-12025 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Marc Valme, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s denial of his pro se motion to reduce his sentence. Reversible error has
been shown; we affirm in part and vacate in part the district court’s order, and we
remand to the district court for further proceedings.
In 1998, a jury found Valme guilty of conspiracy to import cocaine and
heroin into the United States, per 21 U.S.C. § 952(a), and of conspiracy to
distribute cocaine, per 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). At sentencing, the district court
found that Valme was responsible for at least 350 to 400 kilograms of cocaine; this
finding resulted in a base offense level of 38 under the then-applicable version of
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). The district court then concluded that Valme was subject to a
4-level enhancement for abuse of public trust and for obstruction of justice. Based
on Valme’s total offense level of 42 and criminal history category of I, Valme’s
guidelines range was 360 months to life. The district court sentenced Valme to life
imprisonment. Valme’s convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
See United States v. Audain, et al., 254 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2001).
In March 2019, Valme filed pro se the instant motion to reduce his sentence.
Valme sought a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on
2
Case: 19-12025 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 3 of 6
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Valme’s motion also cited to
section 102(b)(3) of the First Step Act of 2018.
The government opposed Valme’s motion. The government argued that
Valme was unentitled to relief under section 102(b)(3): a section that amended the
method for calculating good conduct time. The government asserted that this
provision was inapplicable to inmates -- like Valme -- who were serving life
sentences. The government made no argument about Valme’s eligibility for a
sentence reduction based on section 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782.
In his pro se reply to the government’s opposition, Valme reasserted his
position that he was entitled to relief under section 102(b)(3) of the First Step Act.
Valme also urged the district court to consider his motion in the light of Dillon v.
United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010). The district court denied summarily Valme’s
motion “for the reasons stated in the government’s response.”
First, we conclude that the district court committed no error in concluding
that Valme was ineligible for relief under section 102(b)(3) of the First Step Act.
By its plain terms, the statute amended by section 102(b)(3) is inapplicable to
prisoners who are serving life sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1).
We next address Valme’s request for a sentence reduction based on section
3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782. As an initial matter, we reject the government’s
3
Case: 19-12025 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 4 of 6
assertion that Valme failed to raise adequately this argument in the district court
and on appeal. We have long held that pro se pleadings and such are held to a less
strict standard than pleadings filed by lawyers and, thus, must be construed
liberally. See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
Nevertheless, when a pro se litigant fails entirely to raise an issue in the district
court or on appeal, that issue is deemed waived or abandoned. Id.; Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
We conclude that Valme raised sufficiently his Amendment 782 argument
both in the district court and on appeal. In Valme’s 2-page motion for a sentence
reduction, Valme requested expressly relief under section 3582(c)(2) and
Amendment 782. Then, in his 2-page reply, Valme urged the district court to
consider his motion in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon: a case
that discussed the two-step approach district courts must utilize when ruling on a
section 3582(c)(2) motion. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826-87. In his 3-page appellate
brief, Valme reasserts that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment
782 and cites again to Dillon. Particularly given the brevity of Valme’s pleadings,
Valme’s express references to section 3582(c)(2) and to Amendment 782 were
adequate to put the government and the district court on notice that Valme sought a
sentence reduction on that ground. Cf. United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273,
4
Case: 19-12025 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 5 of 6
1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Our task in assessing an appeal is to adjudicate the
issues that are fairly and plainly presented to us and of which the appellee is put on
notice; it is not to hunt for issues that an appellant may or may not have intended to
raise.”). Under the circumstances of this case, Valme’s pleadings -- construed
liberally -- raised sufficiently the Amendment 782 issue.
Under section 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce a defendant’s term of
imprisonment if the defendant’s sentence was based upon a guidelines range that
was later lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In
ruling on a section 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court “must engage in a two-part
analysis.” United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). First, the
district court determines the sentence the court would have imposed had the
amended guidelines been in effect when the defendant was sentenced. Id. At the
second step, the district court must then decide -- in the light of the 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) factors -- whether it will exercise its discretion to impose the newly
calculated sentence or if it will retain the original sentence. Id. at 781.
Here, the district court failed entirely to address Valme’s request for a
sentence reduction based on section 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782. Amendment
782, which applies retroactively, reduced by two levels the base offense levels for
most drug offenses listed in § 2D1.1(c). U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 782 (2014).
5
Case: 19-12025 Date Filed: 02/05/2020 Page: 6 of 6
The government says in its appellate brief that it “appears” that application of
Amendment 782 might result in a 2-level decrease in Valme’s offense level.
Without deciding the issue, we agree that whether Valme’s guidelines might be
lowered under the amended guidelines is at least arguable.
Because the district court erred in failing to address Valme’s Amendment
782 argument, we vacate in part the district court’s denial of Valme’s motion for a
sentence reduction and remand to the district court for further proceedings. In
particular, we instruct the district court to conduct the necessary two-part analysis
in ruling on Valme’s section 3582(c)(2) motion. To the extent the district court
denied Valme’s motion for a sentence reduction under section 102(b)(3) of the
First Step Act, we affirm.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
6