Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 26-11563 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 Page: 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-11563 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JUNIOR JEAN BAPTISTE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20777-JEM-1 ____________________ Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Junior Jean Baptiste, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on USCA11 Case: 26-11563 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 26-11563 Amendment 821, which added § 4C1.1 to the Sentencing Guide- lines. Because § 4C1.1 does not apply to defendants who, like Bap- tiste, received vulnerable-victim sentence adjustments, we affirm. We review de novo the district court’s conclusion that a de- fendant is (or is not) eligible for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012). Under that section, a district court may reduce a term of imprisonment for a defendant “who has been sentenced to a term of imprison- ment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been low- ered by the Sentencing Commission . . . if such a reduction is con- sistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In 2023, the Sentencing amended the Guidelines, adding a new section, U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 (2023). See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 821 (2023). “Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, a defendant is eligible for a two-point guidelines reduction if he has zero criminal history points and meets a variety of other criteria.” United States v. Her- nandez, 167 F.4th 1113, 1134 (11th Cir. 2026). One such criterion is that “the defendant did not receive an adjustment under § 3A1.1.” U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(9). Section 3A1.1 provides for a two-level in- crease “[i]f the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim” and another two-point in- crease if the “offense involved a large number of vulnerable vic- tims.” Id. § 3A1.1(b)(1)–(2). Baptiste argues that he is eligible for a sentence reduction because the newly enacted § 4C1.1 applies to zero-point offenders USCA11 Case: 26-11563 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 Page: 3 of 4 26-11563 Opinion of the Court 3 and applies retroactively. That’s true as far as it goes, but the new section also explicitly limits its application to defendants who “did not receive an adjustment under § 3A1.1.” Id. § 4C1.1(a)(9). That disqualifies Baptiste, who received two separate two-level § 3A1.1 enhancements—one because he knew or should have known that one of his victims was vulnerable, id. § 3A1.1(b)(1), and another be- cause his offense involved a large number of vulnerable victims, id. § 3A1.1(b)(2). Order Den. Def.’s Mot. for Sentencing Reduction at 2, Dkt. No. 159. Baptiste counters that having received a § 3A1.1 enhancement doesn’t automatically take him out of § 4C1.1’s am- bit, 1 but we read things differently: That section, by its own terms, applies only to defendants who meet “all of the following criteria,” U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a) (emphasis added), including that “the defend- ant did not receive an adjustment under § 3A1.1,” id. § 4C1.1(a)(9). That Baptiste received such an adjustment closes the case. The dis- trict court did not err in denying Baptiste’s motion for a sentence reduction based on § 4C1.1. 2 1 Baptiste looks to the United States Probation Office’s memorandum for sup- port. To be sure, the USPO indicated that Baptiste is eligible for a § 4C1.1 reduction. But we think the USPO made a mistake when it failed to check the box indicating that Baptiste originally received a § 3A1.1 enhancement. In any event, the USPO’s memorandum does not compel us to ignore § 4C1.1’s plain text. See United States v. Livesay, 525 F.3d 1081, 1089 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[D]istrict courts are still required to correctly calculate the advisory Guidelines range.”). 2 Baptiste also argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for a sentence reduction before it received reply briefing from him. Even if that amounted to error, it was harmless: Nothing Baptiste could have written in his reply brief would have changed the facts that (1) § 4C1.1 does not apply to USCA11 Case: 26-11563 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 Page: 4 of 4 4 Opinion of the Court 26-11563 AFFIRMED. defendants who received § 3A1.1 adjustments, U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(9), and (2) Baptiste received two such adjustments.