United States v. Luis Valle

Case: 15-11399 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11399
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20143-CMA-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS VALLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 22, 2015)
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-11399 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 2 of 7
Luis Valle, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se
motion to reduce his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on
Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the
district court erred by concluding that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction
because he was sentenced to the mandatory minimum statutory terms for his
offenses. After careful review, we affirm the denial of Valle’s motion.
I.
Valle pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least
five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(ii),
and 846; conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951(a); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and a
drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 2. During
the plea colloquy, the government informed Valle that the mandatory minimum
sentence for the drug-conspiracy offense was ten years’ imprisonment and that he
faced a mandatory consecutive sentence of five years’ imprisonment for the
firearm-possession offense.
Under the 2008 Sentencing Guidelines, Valle was assigned a base offense
level of 34 for the conspiracy offenses, because the offenses involved between 15
2
Case: 15-11399 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 3 of 7
and 50 kilograms of cocaine, and a criminal history category of I.1 Valle also
received a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. This established a
guideline range of 108-135 months’ imprisonment. But due to the ten-year
mandatory minimum term for the drug-conspiracy offense, Valle’s guideline range
became 120-135 months’ imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c) & cmt.
(explaining how a statutory mandatory minimum or maximum sentence affects the
otherwise-applicable guidelines range). The district court sentenced Valle to the
minimum term of 120 months on the conspiracy offenses, plus the consecutive 60-
month sentence for the firearm-possession offense. We affirmed Valle’s total 180-
month sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Valle, 425 F. App’x 872, 873
(11th Cir. 2011).
In 2014, the Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 782, which reduced
the offense level for certain drug-trafficking offenses, including Valle’s, by two
levels. U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 782. That same year, Valle, proceeding pro se,
filed a motion to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment
782. After the government responded, the district court denied Valle’s motion,
concluding that Valle was not eligible for a sentence reduction because he was
sentenced to the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment. Valle now appeals.
1
The firearm-possession offense was not grouped with the conspiracy offenses because
of the mandatory consecutive sentence for that offense.
3
Case: 15-11399 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 4 of 7
II.
We review de novo the district court’s conclusions about the scope of its
legal authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1258
(11th Cir. 2013). A district court may modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment
if the defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that has subsequently
been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Any
reduction, however, must be consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy
statements. Id.When the district court considers a § 3582(c)(2) motion, it must first
recalculate the guidelines range under the amended guidelines. United States v.
Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). In recalculating the guidelines range,
the district court can substitute only the amended guideline and must keep intact all
other guidelines decisions made during the original sentencing. U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(b)(1) & cmt. n.1(A). Except in circumstances not present here, the
district court cannot reduce a defendant’s sentence below “the minimum of the
amended guideline range.” Id. § 1B1.10(b).
Here, the district court properly concluded that it was not authorized to grant
Valle a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because it could not sentence him
below the minimum of the amended guideline range. See id. Due to the statutory
mandatory minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment, Valle’s amended guideline range
4
Case: 15-11399 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 5 of 7
cannot go lower than 120 months’ imprisonment.2 See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1 & cmt.;
see also United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1340-41 (11th Cir. 2008).
Valle’s original guideline range was 120-135 months’ imprisonment because the
mandatory minimum set the low end of the range. See id. § 5G1.1(c). And, while
Amendment 782 otherwise would have reduced Valle’s guideline range to 87-108
months’ imprisonment, the statutory mandatory minimum requires the low end of
Valle’s guideline range to remain at 120 months. See id. § 5G1.1(b) (“Where a
statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the
applicable guideline range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the
guideline sentence.”).
Because Valle was originally sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment, the
minimum of the amended guideline range, a further reduction of his sentence is not
consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements. See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(b); see also United States v. Castaing-Sosa, 530 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th
Cir. 2008) (“It is well-settled that a district court is not authorized to sentence a
defendant below the statutory mandatory minimum . . . .”). Accordingly, the
district court properly denied Valle’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.
2
Although Valle claims that he was not informed of the statutory mandatory minimum at
sentencing, the record does not support that contention, nor is such an argument within the scope
of the highly limited § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831,
130 S. Ct. 2683, 2694 (2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) proceedings are limited solely to
considering the effects of a retroactively applicable guidelines amendment).
5
Case: 15-11399 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 6 of 7
Nonetheless, we note that the government’s argument sweeps too broadly.
The government contends that Valle was not eligible for a reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2) because his guideline range was based on the mandatory minimum,
not drug quantity, so Amendment 782 did not lower Valle’s amended guideline
range. That is the rule where the statutory mandatory minimum exceeds, and
therefore supersedes, the original guideline range. See United States v. Mills, 613
F.3d 1070, 1077-78 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that a defendant is ineligible for a
sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) when the statutory mandatory minimum
exceeds the defendant’s guideline range). Here, however, the mandatory minimum
term fell within the otherwise applicable original guideline range, so Valle’s range
(up to the high end of 135 months) was still determined by drug quantity. See
U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c). Amendment 782 therefore has the effect of lowering Valle’s
guideline range from 120-135 months to simply 120 months. See U.S.S.G.
§ 5G1.1(b). This is significant because, had Valle been sentenced originally to a
term longer than the statutory minimum (between 120 and 135 months), he would
have been eligible for a sentence reduction notwithstanding the fact that the low
end of his range did not change. But because he was sentenced to the minimum
term, he is not eligible to receive a reduction in this case. See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(b).
6
Case: 15-11399 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 7 of 7
In short, the district court properly concluded that a reduction in Valle’s
sentence was not authorized under § 3582(c)(2). We therefore affirm the denial of
Valle’s motion for a sentence reduction.
AFFIRMED.
7