United States v. Albert Hardy, Jr., 665 F. App'x 268

Background

Hardy was originally sentenced to 168 months after a substantial-assistance downward departure from a Guidelines range that, because of a § 851 enhancement and statutory mandatory minimum, had been listed at 240 months.
He moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) after Guidelines Amendments (notably 782) reduced offense levels for crack-cocaine offenses; the probation officer concluded Hardy was eligible for a reduction to 98 months (treating the amended Guidelines range without regard to the § 851 mandatory minimum and preserving the relative reduction he previously received).
The Government agreed to the 98-month reduction. The district court granted relief but limited the reduction to 140 months, citing consideration of the § 851 notice and asserting it had already concluded 98 months was authorized but not documented.
On initial appeal this court vacated and remanded because the district court misstated the amended Guidelines range (improperly retaining the mandatory minimum) and failed to specify the permissible extent of reduction.
On remand Hardy filed a detailed supplement arguing for 98 months and explaining § 1B1.10(c) (amended range without regard to mandatory minimum), his post‑sentencing conduct, and disparities; the district court again imposed 140 months and said it had considered § 3553(a) factors but also emphasized the § 851 notice.
This appeal concerns whether the district court adequately considered and explained § 3553(a) factors (and Hardy’s supplemental arguments) when ruling on the § 3582(c)(2) reduction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court must provide an individualized § 3553(a) analysis on the record in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding	Hardy: court must consider § 3553(a) factors and explicitly address his supplemental arguments on the record	Govt: court need not provide detailed explanation absent evidence it neglected relevant factors; presumption of consideration applies	Court: vacated and remanded because record shows the court overlooked or misstated Hardy’s filings and failed to acknowledge key arguments, so more detailed reasoning is required
Whether amended Guidelines range must be calculated without regard to the § 851 mandatory minimum	Hardy: § 1B1.10(c) requires disregarding statutory mandatory minimum for amended range; reduction to 98 months is permissible	Court below treated the amended range as still 240 months when explaining its decision	Court: agrees amended range must be determined without regard to mandatory minimum; earlier mischaracterization showed court did not appreciate scope of authority
Whether district court properly considered Hardy’s supplemental filings and post‑sentencing conduct (including cooperation, prison record, and alleged criminal‑history point errors)	Hardy: supplemental memorandum presented new, plausible § 3553(a) considerations that district court must evaluate on remand	Court below claimed such arguments were not presented and thus discounted them	Court: found evidence the court neglected to consider those arguments (or misread the filing), requiring further proceedings
Whether prior cases (Legree/Smalls) permitted cursory explanation or presumption of consideration here	Govt: Legree/Smalls allow presumption that § 3553(a) factors were considered when no new arguments are presented	Hardy: remand raised new issues not addressed at original sentencing, so presumption does not apply	Court: distinguishes Legree/Smalls because different judge presided on remand and Hardy presented new issues; presumption does not excuse fuller explanation

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2000) (presumption a court considered § 3553(a) factors when issues fully presented earlier at sentencing)
United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2013) (reiterating that absent evidence a court neglected factors, detailed explanation is not always required in § 3582(c)(2) rulings)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (framework for § 3582(c)(2) reductions: eligibility under Guidelines and discretionary § 3553(a) consideration)