Case: 12-13378 Date Filed: 01/23/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13378
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:89-cr-01018-MP-GRJ-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILNER VAL SAINT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 23, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On March 30, 1990, Wilner Val Saint was convicted of conspiracy to
Case: 12-13378 Date Filed: 01/23/2013 Page: 2 of 5
possess five or more kilograms of cocaine and fifty more grams of crack cocaine
with intent to distribute, and on June 18, 1990, he was sentenced to life
imprisonment. On February 21, 2012, Val Saint, proceeding pro se, moved the
District Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence based on
Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The court denied his motion, and
he appeals, arguing that, since Amendment 750 lowered the base level for his
conspiracy offense, his continued incarceration is unconstitutional.
We review a district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction for
an abuse of discretion. United States v. White, 305 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir.
2002). A district court abuses its discretion if it fails to apply the proper legal
standard or follow proper procedures in making its ruling. United States v. Jules,
595 F.3d 1239, 1241-42 (11th Cir. 2010). A district court’s legal conclusions
regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines in a
§ 3582(c)(2) proceeding are reviewed de novo. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d
1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
A district court may not modify a term of imprisonment unless the defendant
was sentenced based on a “sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered”
by the Sentencing Commission. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added).
Parts A and C of Amendment 750 to the Guidelines may serve as the basis for a
sentence reduction. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). A reduction, however, is not consistent
2
Case: 12-13378 Date Filed: 01/23/2013 Page: 3 of 5
with the Guidelines’ policy statement if it does not have the effect of lowering the
defendant's applicable guideline sentence range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). A
proceeding under §§ 3582(c)(2) and 1B1.10 does not constitute a full resentencing,
in that the court must maintain all original sentencing determinations, with the sole
exception of applying the relevant amended guideline range. United States v.
Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000). The court must engage in a two-part
analysis when considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction. Id. at 780. First,
the court must recalculate the applicable guideline sentence range, using the
amended guideline provision. United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256
(11th Cir. 2009). Second, the court then must decide, in its discretion, whether to
retain the existing sentence or to impose a reduced sentence, within the new
sentence range, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors as well as
public safety considerations. Id. (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. 1(B)).
When Val Saint was sentenced in 1990 under the 1989 version of the
Sentencing Guidelines, § 2D1.1 calculated either heroin or marijuana equivalencies
in order to combine different drugs. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, Drug Equivalency
Table (1989). Val Saint’s 50 kilograms of powder cocaine and 500 grams of crack
cocaine (for which he was held accountable) were the equivalent of 20 kilograms
of heroin, which set his base offense level at 36. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4), Drug
Equivalency Table (1989). After adding the various enhancements to the base
3
Case: 12-13378 Date Filed: 01/23/2013 Page: 4 of 5
offense level, his total offense level came to 44, which combined with his category
III criminal history yielded a sentence range of life imprisonment. See
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4), Drug Equivalency Table (1989); Federal Sentencing
Guidelines 1989, Sentencing Table. In 1991, the Sentencing Commission
amended the drug equivalency tables to provide conversions only to marijuana,
rather than marijuana and heroin. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 396, Reason for
Amend.
Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, made retroactive effective
November 1, 2011 via Amendment 759, made permanent the temporary
emergency Amendment 748, which revised the crack cocaine quantity tables listed
in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. See U.S.S.G.
App. C, Amend. 750, Reason for Amend. and U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 759.
Following the enactment of Amendment 750, which changed the conversion
calculations, the 50 kilograms of powder cocaine and 500 grams of crack cocaine
for which Val Saint was held accountable were the equivalent of 11,875.5
kilograms of marijuana, which still fell within the level 36 base offense level
category. See U.S.S.G. § 2D 1.1(c)(2), Drug Equivalency Table (2011). After
applying the applicable enhancements, Val Saint’s total offense level in 2011
remained 44 and, with his criminal history category of III, generated a guideline
sentence range of life imprisonment. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2) (2011); Federal
4
Case: 12-13378 Date Filed: 01/23/2013 Page: 5 of 5
Sentencing Guidelines 2011, Sentencing Table.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Val Saint’s
§ 3582(c)(2) motion. Although the court did not explicitly discuss the amended
guideline calculations, it correctly concluded that Amendment 750 did not reduce
Val Saint’s guideline sentence range. Following the enactment of Amendment
750, Val Saint’s base offense level and total offense level in 2011 remained
unchanged, so his guideline sentence range was still life imprisonment, as it was in
1990. Therefore, he was not eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because
Amendment 750 did not lower his guideline range; hence, the court was not
required to determine whether a reduction was appropriate under the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and considerations of public safety. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2);
United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 793 (11th Cir. 2009).
The judgment of the District Court is accordingly
AFFIRMED.
5