[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-17437

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:92-cr-00200-JAL-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

HUMBERTO GALLO, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 21, 2018)

Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Humberto Gallo, through counsel, appeals the district court’s denial of his

Case: 16-17437 Date Filed: 02/21/2018 Page: 1 of 4 
2

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 to 

the Sentencing Guidelines. Gallo argues on appeal that the district court failed to 

properly conduct the first step of the § 3582(c)(2) analysis because it failed to 

calculate, or even identify, his amended guideline range as required by U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.1(b)( 1) and Supreme Court precedent. He contends that although the court 

found that he was eligible for a reduction, due to its failure to calculate a guideline 

range the court lacked a “baseline” to guide its determination of whether to impose 

a reduced sentence.

We review the district court’s decision of whether to grant a sentence 

reduction under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Smith, 

568 F.3d 923, 926 (11th Cir. 2009). “The district court abuses its discretion [in a

§ 3582(c)(2) proceeding] if it fails to apply the proper legal standard or to follow 

proper procedures in making its determination.” United States v. Jules, 595 F.3d 

1239, 1241-42 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation and alterations omitted).

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). When the 

district court considers a § 3582(c)(2) motion, it must “recalculate the sentence 

under the amended guidelines, first determining a new base level by substituting 

Case: 16-17437 Date Filed: 02/21/2018 Page: 2 of 4 
3

the amended guideline range for the originally applied guideline range, and then 

using that new base level to determine what ultimate sentence it would have 

imposed.” United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000); see also 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) (“In determining whether, and to what extent, a reduction 

in the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this 

policy statement is warranted, the court shall determine the amended guideline 

range that would have been applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the 

guidelines listed in subsection (d) had been in effect at the time the defendant was

sentenced.”) (emphasis added). Then, the court must decide, in light of the

§ 3553(a) factors, whether to exercise its discretion to impose the newly calculated 

sentence under the amended Guidelines or retain the original sentence. Bravo, 203 

F.3d at 781.

Gallo correctly contends that the district court violated procedural 

requirements by failing to calculate or identify the guideline range under the 

amended guideline or determining the sentence it would have imposed under the 

new guideline range. Bravo, 203 F.3d at 780; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1). While the 

district court order did summarily state that Gallo is eligible for a reduction, it did 

not state that the court had recalculated Gallo’s range to account for the effect of 

Amendment 782 or identify the recalculated range. Further, in this case, it was 

especially important that the court calculate the guideline range, because such was

Case: 16-17437 Date Filed: 02/21/2018 Page: 3 of 4 
4

necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute about the correct amended guideline 

range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1). Thus, because the district court abused its 

discretion by committing this procedural error, we vacate the district court’s order 

and remand for further proceedings. Jules, 595 F.3d at 1241-42.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Case: 16-17437 Date Filed: 02/21/2018 Page: 4 of 4