USCA11 Case: 25-10230 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 1 of 7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10230 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus
WAYNE DUKE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00026-KKM-AAS-2 ____________________
Before LAGOA, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Wayne Duke appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), in which he claimed that Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing USCA11 Case: 25-10230 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 2 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 25-10230
Guidelines lowered his guideline range. On appeal, Duke argues that the district court erred in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion on the basis that he was ineligible for a reduction under Amendment 821 because U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) provides an exception to re- duce his term of imprisonment less than the minimum of the amended guideline range. After careful review, we affirm. We review the district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo. United States v. Co- lon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1258 (11th Cir. 2013). A district court may modify a defendant’s term of imprison- ment when the original sentencing range has been subsequently lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines by the Sen- tencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). To be eligible for a sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)(2), a defendant must identify an amendment to the Guidelines listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) and the amendment must actually lower the guideline range that was calculated by the sentencing court. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1); id. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)). 1 Duke relies on Amendment 821, which reduced his offense level by two levels. Id. § 1B1.10(d).
1 If “‘uncertainty does not exist’” in a Sentencing Guideline, courts “may not
defer” to the commentary to that Guideline. United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2023). However, we’ve relied on commentary where “[n]o party contest[ed] the commentary’s validity . . . or the propriety of its interpretation of [the Guideline’s] text.” United States v. Jews, 74 F.4th 1325, 1327 n.2, 1328 (11th Cir. 2023). Here, both parties rely on the commentary and do not dispute its validity, so we may consider and defer to it. USCA11 Case: 25-10230 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 3 of 7
25-10230 Opinion of the Court 3
When determining eligibility for a sentence reduction, a dis- trict court is to consider only the effect of the applicable guideline amendment; all other original sentencing determinations are to re- main the same. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780–81 (11th Cir. 2000). Generally, if a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduc- tion under § 3582(c)(2), the district court cannot reduce his sen- tence below the low end of the amended guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). Nonetheless, the Guidelines provide an excep- tion to this rule and allow the district court to reduce the defend- ant’s sentence below the low end of the amended range if it sen- tenced the defendant below the original “guideline range applica- ble to the defendant” based on a substantial-assistance motion by the government. Id. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). Under the version of the commentary applicable here, the “applicable guideline range” is “the guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and crim- inal history category determined pursuant to 1B1.1(a), which is de- termined before consideration of any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any variance.” Id. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)) (2024). 2
2 Previously, the Sentencing Commission amended the commentary to § 1B1.10 to resolve a circuit split over which departures were considered part of the “applicable guideline range” referred to in § 1B1.10 -- and clarified that departures were not part of the applicable guideline range. U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 759 (Reasons for Amendment) (2011). Recently, the Sentencing Com- mission amended Application Note 1 to § 1B1.10 again to clarify that the “ap- plicable guideline range” is “the guideline range that corresponds to the of- fense level and criminal history category determined pursuant to USCA11 Case: 25-10230 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 4 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 25-10230
In United States v. Marroquin-Medina, we decided which method a district court should use in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding to calculate a comparable substantial assistance departure under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). 817 F.3d 1285, 1287 (11th Cir. 2016). There, the defendant was originally sentenced to 72 months’ im- prisonment, which represented a downward departure from his ad- visory guideline range based on his substantial assistance to the government. Id. at 1287–88. In his subsequent § 3582(c)(2) pro- ceedings, the district court applied Amendment 782 and recalcu- lated Marroquin-Medina’s new sentence using a percentage-based approach to calculate a comparable substantial assistance depar- ture under § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). Id. at 1288–89. We held that a sen- tencing court in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding has discretion to use “any of the reasonable methods that were available to calculate the orig- inal § 5K1.1 departure” to calculate a comparable reduction under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). Id. at 1293. Relevant here, our analysis addressed when a court may re- duce a defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and the applicable policy statement in § 1B1.10. Id. at 1290. We explained that, con- sistent with § 1B1.10, “[i]f a district court exercises its discretion to apply a comparable reduction to a § 3582(c)(2) movant’s amended guidelines range, that reduction may only account for a prior sub- stantial assistance departure from the original guidelines range, and may not account for a downward variance from the same.” Id.
§ 1B1.1(a)(1)–(7), which is determined before consideration of Part K of Chap- ter Five or § 1B1.1(b)).” Id. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)) (2025). USCA11 Case: 25-10230 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 5 of 7
25-10230 Opinion of the Court 5
“The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them.” United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507, 514 (2008). “The simple exist- ence of some statutory ambiguity, however, is not sufficient to warrant application of that rule, for most statutes are ambiguous to some degree.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 138 (1998). In order for the rule of lenity to apply, there must be a “grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute.” Id. at 138–39 (citation modified). Here, the district court did not err in denying Duke’s motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA11 Case: 25-10230 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 1 of 7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10230 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus
WAYNE DUKE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00026-KKM-AAS-2 ____________________
Before LAGOA, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Wayne Duke appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), in which he claimed that Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing USCA11 Case: 25-10230 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 2 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 25-10230
Guidelines lowered his guideline range. On appeal, Duke argues that the district court erred in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion on the basis that he was ineligible for a reduction under Amendment 821 because U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) provides an exception to re- duce his term of imprisonment less than the minimum of the amended guideline range. After careful review, we affirm. We review the district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo. United States v. Co- lon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1258 (11th Cir. 2013). A district court may modify a defendant’s term of imprison- ment when the original sentencing range has been subsequently lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines by the Sen- tencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). To be eligible for a sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)(2), a defendant must identify an amendment to the Guidelines listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) and the amendment must actually lower the guideline range that was calculated by the sentencing court. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1); id. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)). 1 Duke relies on Amendment 821, which reduced his offense level by two levels. Id. § 1B1.10(d).
1 If “‘uncertainty does not exist’” in a Sentencing Guideline, courts “may not
defer” to the commentary to that Guideline. United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2023). However, we’ve relied on commentary where “[n]o party contest[ed] the commentary’s validity . . . or the propriety of its interpretation of [the Guideline’s] text.” United States v. Jews, 74 F.4th 1325, 1327 n.2, 1328 (11th Cir. 2023). Here, both parties rely on the commentary and do not dispute its validity, so we may consider and defer to it. USCA11 Case: 25-10230 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 3 of 7
25-10230 Opinion of the Court 3
When determining eligibility for a sentence reduction, a dis- trict court is to consider only the effect of the applicable guideline amendment; all other original sentencing determinations are to re- main the same. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780–81 (11th Cir. 2000). Generally, if a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduc- tion under § 3582(c)(2), the district court cannot reduce his sen- tence below the low end of the amended guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). Nonetheless, the Guidelines provide an excep- tion to this rule and allow the district court to reduce the defend- ant’s sentence below the low end of the amended range if it sen- tenced the defendant below the original “guideline range applica- ble to the defendant” based on a substantial-assistance motion by the government. Id. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). Under the version of the commentary applicable here, the “applicable guideline range” is “the guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and crim- inal history category determined pursuant to 1B1.1(a), which is de- termined before consideration of any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any variance.” Id. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)) (2024). 2
2 Previously, the Sentencing Commission amended the commentary to § 1B1.10 to resolve a circuit split over which departures were considered part of the “applicable guideline range” referred to in § 1B1.10 -- and clarified that departures were not part of the applicable guideline range. U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 759 (Reasons for Amendment) (2011). Recently, the Sentencing Com- mission amended Application Note 1 to § 1B1.10 again to clarify that the “ap- plicable guideline range” is “the guideline range that corresponds to the of- fense level and criminal history category determined pursuant to USCA11 Case: 25-10230 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 4 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 25-10230
In United States v. Marroquin-Medina, we decided which method a district court should use in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding to calculate a comparable substantial assistance departure under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). 817 F.3d 1285, 1287 (11th Cir. 2016). There, the defendant was originally sentenced to 72 months’ im- prisonment, which represented a downward departure from his ad- visory guideline range based on his substantial assistance to the government. Id. at 1287–88. In his subsequent § 3582(c)(2) pro- ceedings, the district court applied Amendment 782 and recalcu- lated Marroquin-Medina’s new sentence using a percentage-based approach to calculate a comparable substantial assistance depar- ture under § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). Id. at 1288–89. We held that a sen- tencing court in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding has discretion to use “any of the reasonable methods that were available to calculate the orig- inal § 5K1.1 departure” to calculate a comparable reduction under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). Id. at 1293. Relevant here, our analysis addressed when a court may re- duce a defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and the applicable policy statement in § 1B1.10. Id. at 1290. We explained that, con- sistent with § 1B1.10, “[i]f a district court exercises its discretion to apply a comparable reduction to a § 3582(c)(2) movant’s amended guidelines range, that reduction may only account for a prior sub- stantial assistance departure from the original guidelines range, and may not account for a downward variance from the same.” Id.
§ 1B1.1(a)(1)–(7), which is determined before consideration of Part K of Chap- ter Five or § 1B1.1(b)).” Id. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)) (2025). USCA11 Case: 25-10230 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 5 of 7
25-10230 Opinion of the Court 5
“The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them.” United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507, 514 (2008). “The simple exist- ence of some statutory ambiguity, however, is not sufficient to warrant application of that rule, for most statutes are ambiguous to some degree.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 138 (1998). In order for the rule of lenity to apply, there must be a “grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute.” Id. at 138–39 (citation modified). Here, the district court did not err in denying Duke’s motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. When the district court originally sen- tenced Duke, it first calculated his sentence based on a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of I, which yielded a guideline range of 108 to 135 months’ imprisonment. The court next said it was granting the government’s one-level § 5K1.1 depar- ture, which yielded a guideline range of 97 to 121 months’ impris- onment. Lastly, the court imposed a two-level downward variance based on the § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Duke to a low-end of the guidelines sentence of 78 months’ imprisonment. For purposes of the instant motion, Duke’s amended offense level pursuant to Amendment 821, coupled with a one-level § 5K1.1 departure, amounts to a total offense level of 28, and, when combined with his criminal history category of I, yields an amended guideline range of 78 to 97 months’ imprisonment. U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, pt. A (Sen- tencing Table). Because Duke’s minimum amended guideline range, accounting for the § 5K1.1 departure, is equal to his original USCA11 Case: 25-10230 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 6 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 25-10230
below-guideline sentence of 78 months, the district court deter- mined that Duke was ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court properly determined that it lacked author- ity to grant Duke’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. Duke disagrees, claiming that § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B)’s exception to the general low-end restriction applies and allows the district court to include the downward vari- ance applied to his original below-guideline sentence, in addition to the departure based on his substantial assistance. But we’ve long recognized that downward variances are not included in this lim- ited exception. See, e.g., Marroquin-Medina, 817 F.3d at 1290 (“Ex- pressly included within [§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B)’s] limited exception are only government substantial assistance motions.”). Likewise, the relevant commentary to § 1B1.10 provides that the “applicable guideline range” that must be lowered in order to be eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction corresponds to the range before any depar- ture provision or variance. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)) (2024). In Duke’s case, the “applicable guideline range” corre- sponds to his original total offense level of 31 and a guideline range of 108 to 135 months’ imprisonment, calculated before any depar- tures or variances; after the substantial assistance motion and the downward variance, he ultimately was sentenced to 78 months. When he filed the instant § 3582 motion based on Amendment 821, the lowest possible sentence Duke could receive with the amended guideline range and his substantial assistance is equal to his original below-guideline sentence of 78 months, so the district court properly found him ineligible for a sentence reduction. USCA11 Case: 25-10230 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/07/2026 Page: 7 of 7
25-10230 Opinion of the Court 7
As for Duke’s argument that the history of § 1B1.10 suggests an intent to give favorable treatment to defendants who cooperate with the government, the exception set forth in § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) expressly recognizes a defendant’s substantial assistance to the gov- ernment and allows a district court the discretion to impose a re- duction comparably less than the amended guideline range. This means that under the provision’s plain language, a defendant con- tinues to receive the benefits of his substantial assistance to the gov- ernment, even when an amendment further reduces his sentence. In other words, Duke’s substantial assistance is still recognized un- der the provision; it is the additional reduction he received as a downward variance at his original sentencing that made him ineli- gible for a further reduction in the instant motion. Moreover, the doctrine of lenity does not apply in this case because Duke has not shown any “grievous ambiguity or uncertainty” in § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). Muscarello, 524 U.S. at 138–39 (citation modified). Accordingly, the district court properly determined that it lacked authority to grant Duke’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, and we af- firm. AFFIRMED.