[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-13698

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIO ANTON LEE, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 2:00-cr-00347-LSC-JHE-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-13698 Date Filed: 08/31/2022 Page: 1 of 13
2 Opinion of the Court 20-13698

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mario Lee, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the 

district court’s order denying his “Petition For Recall Mandate” regarding his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines. On 

appeal, Mr. Lee argues that the district court previously erred by 

not reducing his sentence further after erroneously calculating his 

new offense level. Even accepting Mr. Lee’s proposed total offense 

level, his guideline range remains unchanged. The district court’s 

calculation and sentence within this guideline range was not error. 

Accordingly, we affirm.1

I 

In 2001, a federal jury convicted Mr. Lee of one count each 

of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846; possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession with intent to 

distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and three 

counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

1956(a)(1)(A)(i). 

1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history and 

set out only what is necessary to explain our decision. As to issues not discussed, we summarily affirm.

USCA11 Case: 20-13698 Date Filed: 08/31/2022 Page: 2 of 13
20-13698 Opinion of the Court 3

A 

Mr. Lee’s presentence investigation report (PSI) held him responsible for 105 kilograms of cocaine, 7 kilograms of cocaine base, 

1 kilogram of heroin, and 8 pounds of marijuana. Following multicount aggregation calculations under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d), the probation officer found that Mr. Lee was responsible for a total of 

162,362.88 kilograms of marijuana equivalent, resulting in a base 

offense level of 38. Next, the probation officer applied a two- level 

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for the possession of a 

firearm during the offense. The probation officer noted that Mr. 

Lee was acquitted of this charge at trial, but explained that under 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, possession of the firearm could still be considered 

in determining his offense level. The probation officer also applied 

a four-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) because he was an 

organizer or leader of the criminal activity. After the enhancements, Mr. Lee’s adjusted offense level was 44, which the PSI 

treated as 43. Based on a total offense level of 43 and a criminal 

history category of III, Mr. Lee’s guideline range was life imprisonment. 

At sentencing, the district court adopted the PSI’s guideline 

calculations but sentenced Mr. Lee to a total of 105 years’ imprisonment. Mr. Lee challenged on direct appeal the two-level sentencing enhancement for possession of a firearm based on his acquittal at trial for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. We affirmed his convictions and total sentence in 

USCA11 Case: 20-13698 Date Filed: 08/31/2022 Page: 3 of 13
4 Opinion of the Court 20-13698

2002. See United States v. Miller, 45 F. App’x 877 (11th Cir. 2002) 

(unpublished).2

In 2013, Mr. Lee filed a petition to vacate his sentence based 

“upon the intervening changes to the law’s treatment of crack cocaine.” He argued that the Fair Sentencing Act reduced the punishment for crack cocaine offenses and that he should be resentenced in light of the “incredibly harsh sentence he received at 

trial.” The district court denied Mr. Lee’s motion, which it construed as brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, but noted that under the 

revised Sentencing Guidelines, which were amended pursuant to 

the Fair Sentencing Act, the conversion of cocaine base to marijuana equivalent resulted in a lower marijuana equivalent drug quantity. Using the applicable November 2011 edition of the Sentencing 

Guidelines, the district court concluded that Mr. Lee’s converted 

marijuana equivalent was reduced to 47,857 kilograms of marijuana, which produced a base offense level of 38, leaving his base offense level unchanged from the initial sentencing. He was therefore ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 or 

based on the Fair Sentencing Act. 

 

 

2 Mr. Lee filed several post-conviction challenges. In 2003, he moved to vacate 

his convictions and total sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court 

denied his § 2255 motion on the merits and declined to issue a certificate of 

appealability (COA). 

USCA11 Case: 20-13698 Date Filed: 08/31/2022 Page: 4 of 13
20-13698 Opinion of the Court 5

B 

Relevant to this appeal, in September 2017, Mr. Lee filed a 

pro se motion to reduce his total sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 

He argued that Amendment 782 applied to him retroactively and 

reduced by two levels the base offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). 

He asserted that his amended guideline range after application of 

Amendment 782 was 360 months to life imprisonment. He noted 

that his total offense level would be 42 and asked the district court 

to resentence him to a total of 300 months’ imprisonment. 

The government responded, agreeing that Mr. Lee was eligible for a sentence reduction. The government concurred with 

Mr. Lee that his base offense level would change from 38 to 36 after 

application of Amendment 782 and that his guideline range would 

change to 360 months to life imprisonment. The government 

asked the district court to consider Mr. Lee’s involvement in two 

violent offenses prior to his incarceration for the present convictions and his history of prison disciplinary incidents while incarcerated. Accordingly, it recommended that any reduced total sentence should be above the low end of the amended guideline range. 

Mr. Lee filed a notice stating that he agreed with the government’s 

position that he was eligible for a sentence reduction and requested 

a 360-month total sentence. 

In 2019, the district court granted Mr. Lee’s § 3582(c)(2) motion without holding a hearing and reduced his total sentence to 

360 months’ imprisonment. In so ruling, the district court 

USCA11 Case: 20-13698 Date Filed: 08/31/2022 Page: 5 of 13
6 Opinion of the Court 20-13698

explained that it considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a), particularly the nature and seriousness of any danger that 

Mr. Lee might present to the community, the PSI, its prior judgment and statement of reasons, and Mr. Lee’s post-sentencing conduct. The district court calculated his amended total offense level 

as 42 and his amended guideline range as 360 months to life. 

Despite receiving a reduction, Mr. Lee appealed and argued 

for the first time that the district court should have conducted a 

hearing because it miscalculated his amended guideline range. Mr. 

Lee argued that the district court erred when it reduced his drug 

quantity to 47,857 kilograms of marijuana equivalent but left his 

base offense level at 38. He claimed that his base offense level 

should have been 34-36. Then he argued that his sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 782 should have placed him at a base 

offense level of 32-34. Mr. Lee also raised several other issues, 

which he did not present in his § 3582 motion in the district court. 

Specifically, he argued that his § 2255 proceeding should be reopened, raised ineffective assistance of counsel claims, argued that 

his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum in 21 U.S.C. § 

841(b), noted the 800 pounds of marijuana listed in his PSI, and asserted that the drug types and quantities were not in his indictment 

or proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirmed and concluded 

that Mr. Lee was not entitled to a hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).

See United States v. Lee, 820 F. App’x 998, 999 (11th Cir. 2020) (Lee 

I). We noted Mr. Lee’s attempts to present arguments on appeal 

that were not raised below and “to attack his conviction and prior 

USCA11 Case: 20-13698 Date Filed: 08/31/2022 Page: 6 of 13
20-13698 Opinion of the Court 7

sentencing determinations” and stated that “such challenges are 

not cognizable through a § 3582(c) motion.” Id. (citing United 

States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000)). 

In August of 2020, Mr. Lee, once again proceeding pro se, 

filed a self-styled “true” Rule 60(b)(6) motion under the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure in his criminal case. He sought to reopen 

his initial § 2255 proceeding, arguing, among other things, that the 

government erroneously attributed 800 pounds of marijuana to 

him during his original sentencing. Mr. Lee attached to his Rule 

60(b)(6) Motion a separate motion requesting compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 based on the spread of COVID-19. 

Additionally, Mr. Lee filed a self-styled “Petition For Recall 

Mandate,” relating to the district court’s ruling on his 2013 motion 

for a sentence reduction. He asserted that, although the district 

court reduced his attributable drug quantity to 47,857 kilograms of 

marijuana equivalent, it did not reduce his total sentence appropriately because it assigned him an offense level of 38 rather than 36. 

He argued that this error was plain and that he should be brought 

before the court for it to be corrected. 

In September 2020, the district court, without requiring a response from the government, entered an omnibus order resolving 

Mr. Lee’s three motions. As to Mr. Lee’s motion to “recall” the 

“mandate” or otherwise have his total sentence reduced further, 

the district court stated that it had already applied the subsequent 

changes to the guidelines to Mr. Lee’s reduced sentence. The district court determined that his assertion that it miscalculated his 

USCA11 Case: 20-13698 Date Filed: 08/31/2022 Page: 7 of 13
8 Opinion of the Court 20-13698

offense level was without merit because in 2000, when Mr. Lee was 

originally tried, the base offense level for the quantity of drugs attributable to him was 38. The Sentencing Commission’s 2-level 

reduction for drug crimes reduced Mr. Lee’s base offense level 

from 38 to 36, but the 6 levels of increases for his leadership role 

and use of a firearm brought his offense level back up to a 42, “exactly the level he was resentenced at in 2019.” D.E. 355 at 9. Thus, 

the district court concluded that Mr. Lee’s claim that it miscalculated his offense level was without merit and his motion was denied. 

Mr. Lee filed separate notices of appeal challenging the district court’s order as to his motion for a sentence reduction and his 

Rule 60(b)(6) motion. We docketed both notices of appeal in the 

instant proceeding as appeal No. 20-13698. The government 

moved this Court for summary affirmance.

We granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance in part as to the denials of his Rule 60(b)(6) Motion and his 

motion for compassionate release. But we denied the government’s motion for summary affirmance as to the district court’s denial of Mr. Lee’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. We concluded that, even 

though the government may have been right that his present arguments were barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine, it was not so 

clearly right that summary affirmance was appropriate.3 

3 The government again argues that the law-of-the-case doctrine bars us from 

considering Mr. Lee’s motion because we implicitly rejected this same argument in our decision in Lee I, 820 F. App’x at 999. Because we affirm the 

USCA11 Case: 20-13698 Date Filed: 08/31/2022 Page: 8 of 13
20-13698 Opinion of the Court 9

Now we must decide whether the district court erroneously 

calculated the applicable guideline range when it granted Mr. Lee’s 

reduction under § 3582(c)(2). 

II 

“We review the district court's interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and accept its factual findings unless clearly 

erroneous.” United States v. Barner, 572 F.3d 1239, 1247 (11th Cir. 

2009). 

III 

A district court may only modify a term of imprisonment in 

certain situations, including when 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). A defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) only 

when an amendment listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) retroactively 

lowers his guideline range that was calculated by the sentencing 

court. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)); United States v. 

Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 909 (11th Cir. 2003). Any reduction must 

be consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements. 

See § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)). 

A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding does “not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant.” § 1B1.10(a)(3). When the district court 

district court’s denial of Mr. Lee’s motion on the merits, we do not revisit—

nor opine on—this argument again here. 

USCA11 Case: 20-13698 Date Filed: 08/31/2022 Page: 9 of 13
10 Opinion of the Court 20-13698

considers a § 3582(c)(2) motion, it must first recalculate the guideline range under the amended Sentencing Guidelines. See Bravo, 

203 F.3d at 780. In calculating the new range, the district court 

must implement the Guideline amendment but “leave all other 

guideline application decisions unaffected.” § 1B1.10(b)(1). It 

“may not enter any new finding that is inconsistent with a finding 

it made in the original sentence proceeding.” United States v. 

Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 340 (11th Cir. 2013). Nor may it consider 

“extraneous resentencing issues” that belong in a proceeding under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Bravo, 203 F.3d at 782. Unless the defendant 

provided substantial assistance, any reduction may not be less than 

the low end of the amended guideline range. See § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A).

Amendment 750, made effective on November 1, 2011, revised the crack cocaine quantity tables to conform to the Fair Sentencing Act. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 750. These changes 

lowered the drug quantities attributable to defendants after conversion to the marijuana equivalent. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, 

comment. (n.10(E)) (2010) with U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. 

(n.10(D)) (2011). Amendment 750 did not change the base offense 

level assigned to the attributable drug quantities. SeeU.S.S.G. App. 

C, Amend. 750; U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). 

Amendment 782, made effective on November 1, 2014, revised the Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1(c), and in pertinent part, 

provided a two-level reduction in the base offense level for controlled substance offenses. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 782; 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). Specifically, Amendment 782 revised the base 

USCA11 Case: 20-13698 Date Filed: 08/31/2022 Page: 10 of 13
20-13698 Opinion of the Court 11

offense levels that corresponded to attributable drug quantities so 

that, as of November 1, 2014, at least 30,000 kilograms, but less 

than 90,000 kilograms of marijuana, resulted in a base offense level 

of 36, while a base offense level of 90,000 or more kilograms resulted in a base offense level of 38. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 

782; § 2D1.1(c). Amendment 782 did not alter other enhancements 

that applied based on the specific characteristics of a defendant’s 

offense conduct. See United States v. Melton, 861 F.3d 1320, 1323 

(11th Cir. 2017). 

Mr. Lee correctly contends that Amendment 782 reduced 

his drug-equivalent quantities from 162,362.88 kilograms of marijuana to 47,359.88 kilograms, making his base offense level 36 rather than 38. See Appellant’s Br. at 5. See also U.S.S.G. § 

2D1.1(c)(2). He also concedes that he is subject to a 6-point enhancement— “4 [points] for the leadership role and . . . 2 points for 

the firearm.” Appellant’s Br. at 5. Thus, his total offense level 

would be 42, the exact total offense level the district court found. 

See D.E. 355 at 8–9. 

To get to a lower number, Mr. Lee seems to make his own 

miscalculations. He argues that despite the 6-point enhancement, 

his total offense level should be 40. He comes to this conclusion 

by starting from an incorrect base offense level. Mr. Lee contends 

that his base level offense should be 34 because Amendment 782 

reduces his base level offense by 2 points. So, he thinks that the 

drug-equivalent quantities recalculation (reducing 162,362.88 kilograms of marijuana to 47,359.88 kilograms) puts his base offense 

USCA11 Case: 20-13698 Date Filed: 08/31/2022 Page: 11 of 13
12 Opinion of the Court 20-13698

level at 36 and then Amendment 782 subtracts an additional 2 levels, putting him at 34. With the 6-point enhancement, that increases his total offense level to 40, rather than 42. But the base

offense level of 36 already reflects the two-point reduction under 

Amendment 782. Mr. Lee arrives at a total offense level of 40 by 

double-counting the effect of the guidelines reduction. 

Even if we accept Mr. Lee’s erroneous claim that his total 

offense level is 40 rather than 42, his guideline range would remain 

unchanged. If Mr. Lee has a total offense level of 40, his criminal 

history category III would still place him in the guidelines range of 

360 months’ imprisonment to life. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Sentencing 

Table. Notably, this range is the same range Mr. Lee asked the 

district court to apply in his pro se motion, see D.E. 34 at 4, which 

his subsequently assigned Federal Public Defender agreed was the 

applicable range. See D.E. 345 at 1 (“The FPD . . . agrees with the 

government that the revised guideline range[ ] [is] 360 months [to] 

Life[.]”). We therefore find no error in the district court’s calculations of the guidelines range. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USCA11 Case: 20-13698 Date Filed: 08/31/2022 Page: 12 of 13
20-13698 Opinion of the Court 13

IV 

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district court's 

denials of Mr. Lee’s motion. 

AFFIRMED.4 

4 In his “Petition For Leave To Amend Reply Brief To Clarify/Amplify In The 

Interest Of Justice,” which we construe as a motion for leave to amend his 

reply brief, Mr. Lee argues that the district court’s conclusion that a converted 

drug weigh of 47,857 kilograms resulted in a base level offense of 38 was 

clearly erroneous. But as we’ve explained, accepting Mr. Lee’s proposed base 

level offense does not change his ultimate guideline range. Accordingly, that 

motion is DENIED. Mr. Lee’s “Petition For Oral Arguments In The Interest 

Of Justice Pursuant To Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(c),” which we construe as a 

motion for oral argument, is also DENIED.

USCA11 Case: 20-13698 Date Filed: 08/31/2022 Page: 13 of 13