Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10681/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10681-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wayne Baptiste
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10681

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 7, 2015)

Before MARTIN, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

USCA11 Case: 15-10681 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM: 

Wayne Baptiste, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s determination 

that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and 

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines because he had been sentenced as a 

career offender. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.*

 

We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of 

its authority under section 3582(c)(2). United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 

1319 (11th Cir. 2012). We construe liberally pro se pleadings. Tannenbaum v. 

United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 

A district court ordinarily may not modify a defendant’s term of 

imprisonment once it has been imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). A district court 

may, however, 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). “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, § 

 * To the extent Baptiste challenges the constitutionality of his sentence, this argument is not 

cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 

(11th Cir. 2000) (in section 3582(c) proceedings, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider 

collateral attacks on a sentence). Moreover, Baptiste has abandoned his arguments (raised for 

the first time in his reply brief) that he is entitled to relief under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 

and Amendments 706 and 750. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 

(11th Cir. 2004). 

USCA11 Case: 15-10681 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 2 of 4
3

3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence.” United States v. Hamilton, 

715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013). The defendant bears the burden of 

establishing that a retroactive amendment actually lowers his guideline range. Id. 

When determining whether a reduction is warranted, a court should 

determine the guidelines range that would have applied had the pertinent 

amendment been in effect at the time of defendant’s sentencing. U.S.S.G. § 

1B1.10(b)(1). In doing so, a court must substitute only the pertinent amendment 

into the district court’s original guidelines calculations and must leave all other 

sentencing decisions unaffected. Id.; United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 

(11th Cir. 2000). 

In this case, the sentencing court calculated Baptiste’s base offense level as 

38 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1), based on the quantity of drugs involved in his 

offense. The court then added a two-level enhancement for Baptiste’s possession 

of a firearm, resulting in an adjusted offense level of 40. Because Baptiste 

qualified as a career offender, the court applied the sentencing guidelines under 

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Under section 4B1.1, Baptiste’s offense level was deemed to be 

the greater of 37 or “the offense level otherwise applicable” which, in Baptiste’s 

case, was 40. Based on a total offense level of 40 and a criminal history category 

of VI, Baptiste’s guideline range was calculated as 360 months’ to life 

imprisonment. The sentencing court imposed a sentence of 360 months. 

USCA11 Case: 15-10681 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 3 of 4
4

The district court committed no error in denying Baptiste a sentence 

reduction based on Amendment 782. Amendment 782 reduced -- by two -- the 

base offense levels for most drug sentences calculated pursuant to the Drug 

Quantity Table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). U.S.S.G. App. C., amend. 782. Applying 

retroactively Amendment 782 to Baptiste’s case would decrease Baptiste’s base 

offense level from 38 to 36. Even absent the two-level enhancement for 

possession of a firearm, Baptiste’s total offense level would then be adjusted up to 

37, pursuant to section 4B1.1, based on Baptiste’s status as a career offender. 

Together with his criminal history category of VI, Baptiste’s resulting guideline 

range remains 360 months’ to life imprisonment. Because the retroactive 

application of Amendment 782 results in no change to Baptiste’s sentencing range, 

no sentence reduction is authorized under section 3582(c)(2). See Hamilton, 715 

F.3d at 337. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-10681 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 4 of 4