[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-11540

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:06-cr-00015-RS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICKEY ELLIOT ROULHAC, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(February 11, 2013)

Before BARKETT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-11540 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 1 of 7 
2

Rickey Roulhac, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 

motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). On appeal, 

Roulhac argues that: (1) he is entitled to a sentence reduction pursuant to 

Amendment 750, even though he was originally sentenced to the mandatory 

minimum, because his sentence was later reduced based on his substantial 

assistance to the government; and (2) the lower mandatory minimum sentences, 

enacted by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), apply to defendants who, like 

him, were sentenced before the Act’s effective date.

I.

In 2006, Roulhac pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with 

intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii) and 846 (“Count One”), and possession with intent to 

distribute 5 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of § 841(a)(1) and 

(b)(1)(B)(iii) (“Count Two”). Subsequently, the government filed a notice of its 

intent to seek a sentence enhancement based on Roulhac’s six prior felony drug 

convictions. 

According to the presentence investigation report (“PSI”), Roulhac’s offense 

involved “just over three kilograms of cocaine base.” As a result, based on the 

2005 Sentencing Guidelines Manual, the probation office assigned a base offense 

level of 38, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1). Roulhac received a two-level 

Case: 12-11540 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 2 of 7 
3

enhancement for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily 

injury to another in the course of fleeing from law enforcement, under U.S.S.G. 

§ 3C1.2, and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, under 

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) and (b). Thus, his total offense level was 37. Based on this 

offense level and a criminal history category of VI, Roulhac’s guideline range 

initially was 360 months to life imprisonment. However, as to Count One, 

Roulhac faced a mandatory minimum term of life imprisonment because of his 

prior felony drug convictions. Accordingly, his guideline range became life 

imprisonment. 

Roulhac filed no objections to the PSI, and ultimately, the court imposed 

concurrent life sentences for Counts One and Two. Further, the court indicated 

that it had adopted the PSI without change, and that it had imposed the mandatory 

minimum sentence. 

In August 2009, the government filed a motion and amended motion, 

pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b), advising the court of Roulhac’s substantial 

assistance to law enforcement after sentencing, and requesting that the court 

determine whether his sentence should be reduced based on his assistance. The 

court found that Roulhac had provided substantial assistance, and granted the 

government’s Rule 35(b) motion. As a result, on August 19, 2009, the court 

reduced Roulhac’s sentence to 300 months’ imprisonment. 

Case: 12-11540 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 3 of 7 
4

In January 2012, Roulhac filed the instant pro se § 3582(c)(2) motion based 

on Amendment 750. In his motion, Roulhac argued that the FSA did not forbid 

defendants with statutory minimum sentences from obtaining a sentence reduction. 

Further, this Court’s decision in United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337 (11th 

Cir. 2008), which held that a substantial-assistance reduction did not eliminate the 

applicable mandatory minimum sentence, was distinguishable because it applied to 

Amendment 706. He suggested that, unlike Amendment 706, Amendment 750 

specifically changed the mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine offenses. 

Based on principles of statutory construction, the FSA is retroactively applicable to 

all defendants with crack cocaine offenses. Under the FSA, Roulhac would have 

been subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment and a 

guideline range of 120 to 150 months’ imprisonment, based on the 50 grams or 

more of cocaine to which he pled guilty. Further, his sentence should reflect the 

crack-to-powder cocaine disparities, which were not considered during his original 

sentencing proceeding. Thus, he requested that the court reduce his sentence to 

120 months’ imprisonment. 

The district court denied Roulhac’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. The court found 

that Roulhac did not qualify for a sentence reduction because applying Amendment 

750 did not lower his applicable guideline range of life imprisonment. 

Case: 12-11540 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 4 of 7 
5

Additionally, Roulhac was ineligible for a sentence reduction because, due to the 

Rule 35(b) motion, he had already been sentenced below the guideline range. 

II.

We review de novo the district court’s determination that a defendant is not 

eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Glover, 686 

F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012). 

When an applicable statutory mandatory minimum sentence is greater than

the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the mandatory minimum becomes 

the guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b). A court may only modify a term of 

imprisonment in limited circumstances, including where a defendant “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). A sentence reduction is not authorized if an amendment does not 

have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range. Glover, 

686 F.3d at 1206. Further, even if the defendant was originally sentenced below 

the statutory minimum due to the government’s filing of a substantial-assistance 

motion, the district court’s point of departure would be the mandatory minimum 

and would not “eliminate the otherwise applicable mandatory minimum.” 

Williams, 549 F.3d at 1340-41. 

Case: 12-11540 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 5 of 7 
6

Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, made retroactively applicable 

on November 1, 2011, by Amendment 759, makes permanent the temporary 

emergency Amendment 748, which lowered the base offense levels for particular 

crack cocaine quantities in § 2D1.1(c), pursuant to the FSA. See U.S.S.G. App. C, 

Amend. 750, Reason for Amend. and U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 759. In Glover, 

the defendant pled guilty to crack cocaine offenses in 2005 and was subject to a 

statutory mandatory minimum term of life imprisonment, which became his 

guideline range. Glover, 686 F.3d at 1204-05. However, based on a substantialassistance motion filed by the government, the district court departed below the 

applicable guideline range and sentenced Glover to 204 months’ imprisonment. Id.

at 1205. Glover filed a § 3582 motion for a sentence reduction based on 

Amendment 750. Id. We held that Amendment 750 did not lower Glover’s 

applicable guideline range, which “was—and still is—life in prison.” Id. at 1208.

Finally, the FSA, enacted on August 3, 2010, raised from 50 grams to 280 

grams the threshold quantity of crack cocaine necessary to trigger a mandatory 

minimum sentence of life imprisonment for an offender with at least two prior 

felony drug convictions. See Pub. L. No. 111-220 § 2(a)(1), 124 Stat. 2372 (2010), 

codified at 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

The district court correctly denied Roulhac’s § 3582(c)(2) motion because 

Amendment 750 did not lower his applicable guideline range. Similarly to the 

Case: 12-11540 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 6 of 7 
7

defendant in Glover, even though Roulhac ultimately received a below-Guidelines 

sentence based on substantial assistance, his applicable guideline range “was—and 

still is—life in prison.” Glover, 686 F.3d at 1204-05, 1208. Thus, Roulhac was 

ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction because Amendment 750, which 

did not alter the statutory mandatory minimum penalty as determined by Congress, 

does not effectively reduce his applicable guideline range of life imprisonment. Id. 

at 1206. Finally, Roulhac’s reliance on the FSA is misplaced. Even if the FSA 

applied to Roulhac, his mandatory minimum sentence would still have been life 

imprisonment because he was held responsible for more than 280 grams of crack 

cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). As such, contrary to his argument, the 

provisions of the FSA would not have reduced the mandatory minimum sentence 

that applied to him. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of Roulhac’s 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-11540 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 7 of 7