United States v. Wayne Baptiste

Case: 18-13466 Date Filed: 10/10/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-13466
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:99-cr-00125-KMM-10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WAYNE BAPTISTE,
a.k.a. Fat Wayne,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 10, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, GRANT, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 18-13466 Date Filed: 10/10/2019 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Baptiste, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial --
pursuant to the law-of-the-case doctrine -- of Baptiste’s renewed motion to reduce
his sentence based on Amendment 782. The government has moved for summary
affirmance and a stay of the briefing schedule.
Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of one of the parties
is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to
the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is
frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
“We review de novo the district court’s application of the law of the case
doctrine.” Thomas v. United States, 572 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009). We
construe liberally pro se pleadings. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262,
1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
“Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, an issue decided at one stage of a case
is binding at later stages of the same case.” United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110
F.3d 1556, 1560 (11th Cir. 1997). The doctrine “encompasses both findings of fact
and conclusions of law made by the appellate court.” United States v. Anderson,
772 F.3d 662, 668 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotations and alterations omitted). We will
decline to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine only in limited circumstances,
2
Case: 18-13466 Date Filed: 10/10/2019 Page: 3 of 4
including “where there is new evidence, an intervening change in controlling law
dictat[ing] a different result, or the appellate decision, if implemented, would cause
manifest injustice because it is clearly erroneous.” Id. at 668-69.
Section 3582(c)(2) authorizes a district court to reduce a defendant’s
sentence if the term of imprisonment was “based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). Section 3582(c)(2) does not provide for a de novo resentencing.
United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000). Instead, in
determining whether a sentence reduction is warranted, a court recalculates a
defendant’s applicable guideline range, substituting only the amended guideline
and leaving all other sentencing decisions intact. Id. at 780. “Where a
retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense
level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was
based, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence.” United States v.
Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013) (alteration omitted).
Baptiste has filed three separate section 3582(c)(2) motions for a sentence
reduction based on Amendment 782: in January 2015, February 2015, and in July
2018. The district court denied Baptiste’s first two motions, concluding that
Baptiste was ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because he
was sentenced as a career offender. On appeal, we affirmed the district court’s
3
Case: 18-13466 Date Filed: 10/10/2019 Page: 4 of 4
denial of Baptiste’s February 2015 motion. United States v. Baptiste, 618 F.
App’x 652 (11th Cir. 2015) (unpublished). We determined that -- because Baptiste
had been sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 -- a retroactive
application of Amendment 782 resulted in no change to Baptiste’s sentencing
range. Id. at 653-54.
In Baptiste’s July 2018 motion (the motion at issue in this appeal), Baptiste
again sought a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782. This issue has
already been decided. Our prior decision affirming the denial of Baptiste’s
February 2015 motion was neither clearly erroneous nor likely to result in manifest
injustice. Baptiste has failed to show circumstances that would merit an exception
to the law-of-the-case doctrine; Baptiste is thus barred from revisiting his
eligibility for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782.
Because there is no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,
summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at
1162. The government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the
government’s motion to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.
AFFIRMED .
4