USCA11 Case: 20-11734 Date Filed: 11/20/2020 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-11734
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
________________________
(November 20, 2020)
Before WILSON, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-11734 Date Filed: 11/20/2020 Page: 2 of 5
Marc Valme, pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
reduce his life sentence under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to
the Sentencing Guidelines. We vacated and remanded, in part, the district court’s
previous denial of Valme’s motion because the district court did not follow the
required two-step process for ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motions. United States v.
Valme, 802 F.App’x 485 (11th Cir. 2020).We also affirmed the district court’s
denial of Valme’s motion to the extent he brought it under the First Step Act of
2018 (“First Step Act”).
On remand, the district court again denied Valme’s motion. Now, he argues
that his sentence should be reduced because Amendment 782 lowered his offense
level and guideline range and that the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors warranted
release based on his post-sentencing conduct. Valme also raises substantive
attacks against his convictions and sentences and again raises First Step Act issues.
In
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, we review de novo the district
court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing
Guidelines. United States v. Caraballo-Martinez,
866 F.3d 1233, 1238 (11th Cir.
2017). If § 3582(c)(2) applies, a district court’s decision to grant or deny a
sentence reduction is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. Id. Pro se
pleadings are liberally construed. United States v. Webb,
565 F.3d 789, 792 (11th
Cir. 2009).
2
USCA11 Case: 20-11734 Date Filed: 11/20/2020 Page: 3 of 5
Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce the prison sentence of a
“defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission[.]”
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). “The
purpose of § 3582(c)(2) is to give a defendant the benefit of a retroactively
applicable amendment to the guidelines.” United States v. Glover,
686 F.3d 1203,
1206 (11th Cir. 2012). Section 3582(c)(2) does not grant the court jurisdiction to
consider extraneous resentencing issues, including collateral attacks on a sentence.
See United States v. Bravo,
203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000) (district court had
no jurisdiction in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding to consider a defendant’s Eighth
Amendment claim that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment).
Collateral attacks must be brought under
28 U.S.C. § 2255. See
id.
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines reduced by two the base
offense levels of certain drug offenses. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 782 (2014).
After Amendment 782, being responsible for an amount between 150 to 450
kilograms of cocaine results in a base offense level of 36.
Id. § 2D1.1(c)(2).
A district court may not reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment unless:
(1) the defendant’s sentence was based upon a guideline range that the Sentencing
Commission subsequently lowered; and (2) a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C.
3
USCA11 Case: 20-11734 Date Filed: 11/20/2020 Page: 4 of 5
§ 3582(c)(2). The district court must follow a two-step process in ruling on a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion. Bravo,
203 F.3d at 780. First, the court must recalculate the
defendant’s sentence by substituting the amended guideline range for the originally
applied guideline range.
Id. At this step, all other guideline application decisions
made during the original sentencing remain intact.
Id. Second, the court must
consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and may consider the defendant’s post-
sentencing conduct in deciding whether a reduction of sentence is warranted.
United States v. Williams,
557 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). In doing so, the
district court is not required to articulate each § 3553(a) factor if the record, as a
whole, demonstrates that it took the pertinent factors into account. Id. While the
two-step analysis is required, the district court’s decision whether to reduce the
defendant’s sentence is discretionary. Id. at 1257.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Valme’s motion on
remand because it performed the required two-step process and properly
considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors before coming to its decision. See
Williams,
557 F.3d at 1257. After assuming that Valme had met his burden of
showing that his base offense level should be reduced by two levels under
Amendment 782, the district court accounted for the pertinent § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. The district court was not required to consider Valme’s post-sentencing
conduct. See id. at 1256. We have already affirmed the district court’s denial of
4
USCA11 Case: 20-11734 Date Filed: 11/20/2020 Page: 5 of 5
relief under the First Step Act. And Valme’s substantive challenges to his
convictions and sentences should be brought in a different proceeding. See Bravo,
203 F.3d at 782. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
5
