[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-10305

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:98-cr-00044-TFM-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES BAKER, III, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________

(July 19, 2021)

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-10305 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 1 of 8
2

Charles Baker appeals his 60-month sentence imposed on the revocation of 

his term of supervised release. He raises two arguments on appeal. First, he 

argues that the district court erred in suggesting that it lacked authority to consider 

that his felony was no longer a Class A felony under the First Step Act of 2018, 

Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (“First Step Act”), when 

imposing its revocation sentence. Second, he argues that, because of the First Step 

Act’s changes, his sentence was procedurally unreasonable. 

I.

We ordinarily review a district court’s revocation of supervised release for 

an abuse of discretion. United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th 

Cir. 2014). However, where a defendant fails to raise an issue below, we review 

for plain error. Id. To show plain error, the defendant must demonstrate that: (1) 

an error occurred; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial 

rights. Id. If all three conditions are met, we may, in our discretion, correct an 

error if it “seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the 

judicial proceedings.” Id. (brackets and quotations omitted).

District courts lack the inherent authority to modify a term of imprisonment 

but may do so to the extent that a statute expressly permits. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(B); see United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290, 1297 (11th Cir. 2020). 

USCA11 Case: 20-10305 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 2 of 8
3

The First Step Act expressly permits district courts to reduce a previously imposed 

term of imprisonment. Jones, 962 F.3d at 1297.

The Fair Sentencing Act, enacted on August 3, 2010, amended 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(b)(1) and 960(b) to reduce the sentencing disparity between crack and 

powder cocaine offenses. Fair Sentencing Act; see Dorsey v. United States, 

567 U.S. 260, 268-69 (2012) (detailing the history that led to enactment of the Fair 

Sentencing Act, including the Sentencing Commission’s criticisms that the 

disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses was disproportional and 

reflected race-based differences). Section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act changed the 

quantity of crack necessary to trigger a 10-year mandatory minimum from 50 

grams to 280 grams and the quantity necessary to trigger a 5-year mandatory 

minimum from 5 grams to 28 grams. Fair Sentencing Act § 2(a)(1)-(2); see also

21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), (B)(iii). These amendments were not made 

retroactive to defendants who were sentenced before the enactment of the Fair 

Sentencing Act. United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 377 (11th Cir. 2012). The 

Fair Sentencing Act did not expressly make any changes to § 841(b)(1)(C), which 

provides for a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years for cases involving 

quantities of crack that do not fall within § 841(b)(1)(A) or (B), i.e., quantities 

below 28 grams. See Fair Sentencing Act § 2(a); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). 

USCA11 Case: 20-10305 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 3 of 8
4

In 2018, Congress enacted the First Step Act, which made retroactive the 

statutory penalties for covered offenses provided under the Fair Sentencing Act. 

See First Step Act § 404. Under § 404(b) of the First Step Act, a court “that 

imposed a sentence for a covered offense may . . . impose a reduced sentence as if 

sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act . . . were in effect at the time the 

covered offense was committed.” Id. § 404(b). The statute defines “covered 

offense” as “a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for 

which were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act . . . , that was 

committed before August 3, 2010.” Id. § 404(a). The First Step Act further 

provides that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require a court to 

reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.” Id. § 404(c).

A district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release and require him 

to serve all or part of his term in prison if it “finds by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(3); see also United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 

2006). Revocation of supervised release is not punishment for a defendant’s new 

offenses that violate the conditions of his supervised release. Johnson v. United 

States, 529 U.S. 694, 699-701 (2000). Rather, post-revocation penalties are 

“treat[ed] . . . as part of the penalty for the initial offense.” Id. at 700. 

USCA11 Case: 20-10305 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 4 of 8
5

A Class A felony has a statutory maximum penalty of life in prison, while a 

Class C felony has a maximum of 25-years, but no less than 10-years’ 

imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(1). The maximum term of imprisonment that 

a court may impose upon revocation of supervised release is five years for a Class 

A felony and no more than two years for a Class C felony. Id. § 3583(e)(3). 

II.

We turn to Baker’s first argument – i.e., that the district court erred when it 

failed to consider reducing his original sentence pursuant to the First Step Act such 

that his underlying felony conviction would be considered a Class C felony with a 

maximum sentence of 24 months rather than a Class A felony with a maximum 

sentence of 60 months. We hold that Baker did not fairly raise this issue below, so 

we review for plain error. Although Baker argues that his statements during his 

allocution alerted the district court to the issue, we do not agree. During his 

allocution, Baker cited his earlier successful motion to reduce his sentence but 

decried the court’s failure to award him a more substantial “two-point reduction.” 

He asserted that he sought this reduction in a motion he filed by mail in 2015, that 

the district court apparently never received. Because the First Step Act was passed 

in 2018, Baker clearly did not reference it in that 2015 motion. Although Baker’s 

allocution to the court was arguing for leniency, including his feeling that his 

original sentence was unfair in light of Congress’ reduction of sentencing for crack 

USCA11 Case: 20-10305 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 5 of 8
6

cocaine (implicitly referencing the Fair Sentencing Act), he never mentioned the 

First Step Act and never moved for First Step Act relief. The court’s vague 

statement about a First Step Act motion being a separate matter cannot create his 

argument when he never mentioned it himself. Sealing the fact that First Step Act 

relief was not being argued, Baker’s attorney never mentioned the First Step Act, 

never moved for First Step Act relief, and made statements and sought a sentence 

inconsistent with any First Step Act argument. The attorney conceded that the 

maximum statutory sentence was 60 months, which was inconsistent with First 

Step Act relief that would mean the underlying felony conviction would have been 

a Class C felony with a 24-month maximum statutory sentence. Similarly, the 

attorney’s explicit request for a sentence between 24 and 30 months was 

inconsistent with the First Step Act argument which would have resulted in the 24-

month statutory maximum.

Baker cannot show plain error. We have stated that “where the explicit 

language of a statute or rule does not specifically resolve an issue, there can be no 

plain error where there is no precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court 

directly resolving it.” United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th 

Cir. 2003). Section 404 of the First Step Act permits a defendant to file a motion 

to seek a two-point reduction. The district court’s statement that Baker’s putative 

First Step Act motion was a separate matter from his revocation proceeding was 

USCA11 Case: 20-10305 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 6 of 8
7

thus not plain error because there is nothing in the statute or binding case law that 

indicates it would be properly brought in such a proceeding, and certainly nothing

indicating that the district court must sua sponte consider such relief in such a 

proceeding. Thus, because the statute did not explicitly resolve the issue and there 

is no precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court resolving it, the district court 

did not plainly err. Moreover, Baker has not established that his substantial rights 

have been affected; he has not established that the district court would have been 

inclined to exercise its discretion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act if 

Baker had fairly raised the issue. 

III.

We review the procedural reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1194 (11th Cir. 2011). We, 

generally, ensure that a sentence was procedurally reasonable by reviewing 

whether the district court miscalculated the Guideline range, treated the Sentencing 

Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors, based the 

sentence on clearly erroneous facts, or failed to adequately explain the sentence. 

United States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d 933, 936 (11th Cir. 2016). The district court 

may impose any sentence within the statutory maximum, and a sentence in excess 

of the chapter seven range is permitted so long as it is within the range imposed by 

Congress. United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 362-63 (11th Cir. 1996). 

USCA11 Case: 20-10305 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 7 of 8
8

Baker’s argument regarding the procedural reasonableness of his sentence 

centers on the district court’s failure to reclassify his underlying conviction under 

the First Step Act. Because we hold that was not plain error, his argument fails.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-10305 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 8 of 8