[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-13378

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:89-cr-01018-MP-GRJ-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

WILNER VAL SAINT, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(January 23, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

On March 30, 1990, Wilner Val Saint was convicted of conspiracy to 

Case: 12-13378 Date Filed: 01/23/2013 Page: 1 of 5 
2

possess five or more kilograms of cocaine and fifty more grams of crack cocaine 

with intent to distribute, and on June 18, 1990, he was sentenced to life 

imprisonment. On February 21, 2012, Val Saint, proceeding pro se, moved the 

District Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence based on 

Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The court denied his motion, and 

he appeals, arguing that, since Amendment 750 lowered the base level for his 

conspiracy offense, his continued incarceration is unconstitutional.

We review a district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction for 

an abuse of discretion. United States v. White, 305 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 

2002). A district court abuses its discretion if it fails to apply the proper legal 

standard or follow proper procedures in making its ruling. United States v. Jules, 

595 F.3d 1239, 1241-42 (11th Cir. 2010). A district court’s legal conclusions 

regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines in a 

§ 3582(c)(2) proceeding are reviewed de novo. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 

1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). 

A district court may not modify a term of imprisonment unless the defendant 

was sentenced based on a “sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered” 

by the Sentencing Commission. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). 

Parts A and C of Amendment 750 to the Guidelines may serve as the basis for a 

sentence reduction. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). A reduction, however, is not consistent 

Case: 12-13378 Date Filed: 01/23/2013 Page: 2 of 5 
3

with the Guidelines’ policy statement if it does not have the effect of lowering the 

defendant's applicable guideline sentence range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). A 

proceeding under §§ 3582(c)(2) and 1B1.10 does not constitute a full resentencing, 

in that the court must maintain all original sentencing determinations, with the sole 

exception of applying the relevant amended guideline range. United States v. 

Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000). The court must engage in a two-part 

analysis when considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction. Id. at 780. First, 

the court must recalculate the applicable guideline sentence range, using the 

amended guideline provision. United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256 

(11th Cir. 2009). Second, the court then must decide, in its discretion, whether to 

retain the existing sentence or to impose a reduced sentence, within the new

sentence range, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors as well as 

public safety considerations. Id. (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. 1(B)). 

When Val Saint was sentenced in 1990 under the 1989 version of the 

Sentencing Guidelines, § 2D1.1 calculated either heroin or marijuana equivalencies 

in order to combine different drugs. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, Drug Equivalency 

Table (1989). Val Saint’s 50 kilograms of powder cocaine and 500 grams of crack 

cocaine (for which he was held accountable) were the equivalent of 20 kilograms 

of heroin, which set his base offense level at 36. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4), Drug 

Equivalency Table (1989). After adding the various enhancements to the base 

Case: 12-13378 Date Filed: 01/23/2013 Page: 3 of 5 
4

offense level, his total offense level came to 44, which combined with his category 

III criminal history yielded a sentence range of life imprisonment. See 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4), Drug Equivalency Table (1989); Federal Sentencing 

Guidelines 1989, Sentencing Table. In 1991, the Sentencing Commission 

amended the drug equivalency tables to provide conversions only to marijuana, 

rather than marijuana and heroin. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 396, Reason for 

Amend. 

Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, made retroactive effective 

November 1, 2011 via Amendment 759, made permanent the temporary 

emergency Amendment 748, which revised the crack cocaine quantity tables listed 

in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), pursuant to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. See U.S.S.G. 

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

Following the enactment of Amendment 750, which changed the conversion 

calculations, the 50 kilograms of powder cocaine and 500 grams of crack cocaine 

for which Val Saint was held accountable were the equivalent of 11,875.5 

kilograms of marijuana, which still fell within the level 36 base offense level 

category. See U.S.S.G. § 2D 1.1(c)(2), Drug Equivalency Table (2011). After 

applying the applicable enhancements, Val Saint’s total offense level in 2011 

remained 44 and, with his criminal history category of III, generated a guideline 

sentence range of life imprisonment. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2) (2011); Federal 

Case: 12-13378 Date Filed: 01/23/2013 Page: 4 of 5 
5

Sentencing Guidelines 2011, Sentencing Table. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Val Saint’s 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion. Although the court did not explicitly discuss the amended 

guideline calculations, it correctly concluded that Amendment 750 did not reduce 

Val Saint’s guideline sentence range. Following the enactment of Amendment 

750, Val Saint’s base offense level and total offense level in 2011 remained 

unchanged, so his guideline sentence range was still life imprisonment, as it was in 

1990. Therefore, he was not eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because 

Amendment 750 did not lower his guideline range; hence, the court was not 

required to determine whether a reduction was appropriate under the § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors and considerations of public safety. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); 

United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 793 (11th Cir. 2009). 

The judgment of the District Court is accordingly

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-13378 Date Filed: 01/23/2013 Page: 5 of 5