United States v. David Z. Simpson, 695 F. App'x 17

Defendant David Z. Simpson filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on retroactive Amendments 782 and 788 to the Sentencing Guidelines (lowering drug offense base offense levels).
The district court denied Simpson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion; this denial was appealed and the case was remanded pursuant to United States v. Jacobson for clarification of the district court’s reasoning.
On remand the district court clarified that it denied relief by weighing the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and Simpson’s post-sentencing disciplinary record while incarcerated.
The district court also questioned the credibility of aspects of Simpson’s testimony to the extent they attempted to explain or excuse disciplinary infractions; the court treated post-sentencing conduct as relevant to the § 3582(c)(2) inquiry.
The Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s discretion to consider § 3553(a) factors and post-sentencing conduct when ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion and affirmed the denial of relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court may consider § 3553(a) factors in ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion	U.S.: District court can consider § 3553(a) factors	Simpson: relief should be granted based on guideline amendment reducing range	Held: District court may consider § 3553(a) factors and did not abuse discretion
Whether post‑sentencing conduct may factor into § 3582(c)(2) decision	U.S.: Post‑sentencing conduct relevant to public safety and sentencing factors	Simpson: Post‑sentencing infractions should not preclude reduction based solely on guideline change	Held: Post‑sentencing disciplinary record is a proper consideration
Whether credibility findings about defendant’s testimony improperly affected § 3582(c)(2) analysis	U.S.: Credibility assessment undermined Simpson’s explanations for infractions	Simpson: Credibility doubts improperly used to deny relief	Held: Credibility assessment was linked to explaining infractions and was permissible
Whether district court abused its discretion in denying relief	U.S.: No abuse given consideration of § 3553(a) and prison record	Simpson: Denial was erroneous after guideline amendments	Held: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed

United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1994) (procedures for remand and clarification of district court reasoning)
United States v. Rivera, 662 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2011) (review of district court’s discretion in weighing factors for § 3582(c)(2) relief)
United States v. Simpson, [citation="678 F. App'x 53"] (2d Cir. 2017) (prior appellate order discussing § 3582(c)(2) considerations)