United States v. Dwight Barber, 966 F.3d 435

Barber pled guilty to conspiracy to possess 50+ grams of cocaine base (crack) with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 210 months imprisonment and 10 years supervised release.
At sentencing the district court attributed over 740 grams of crack to Barber; his guideline range was higher, but the court imposed a below-guideline term.
The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) raised the crack-quantity thresholds but was not retroactive; the First Step Act (2018) permits retroactive application of those changes.
Barber moved under the First Step Act; the district court found him eligible, denied a reduction of his imprisonment term, and reduced supervised release from 10 to 8 years.
On appeal Barber argued (1) he was eligible for a reduction and (2) the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider his post-sentencing conduct and by inadequately addressing § 3553(a) factors.

Issue	Barber's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Barber is eligible for relief under the First Step Act	Barber: convicted under a statute whose penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act, so he is eligible	Government: district court's factual finding of 740+ grams noted, but eligibility hinges on statute of conviction, not conduct	Eligible — conviction statute made him a covered offender
Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider Barber's post-sentencing conduct	Barber: court should have considered post-sentencing rehabilitation when deciding relief	Government: Barber never raised post-sentencing conduct below; courts need not consider facts not presented; decision is discretionary	No abuse — no plain error; court not required to consider unraised post-sentencing conduct sua sponte
Whether the district court failed to adequately explain consideration of § 3553(a) factors	Barber: court ignored some § 3553(a) factors and did not adequately explain its decision	Government: court expressly stated it considered applicable § 3553(a) factors and detailed reasons supporting denial of a sentence reduction	No abuse — explanation sufficient for meaningful appellate review; court addressed offense seriousness, priors, and sentencing goals

United States v. Foreman, 958 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act discretion and review principles)
United States v. Boulding, 960 F.3d 774 (6th Cir. 2020) (eligibility depends on statute of conviction; district courts have wide latitude)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (plain-error standard for unpreserved issues)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (showing effect on substantial rights requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (identifies the substantive "substantial rights" focus in plain-error review)
Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959 (2018) (appellate review requires sufficient explanation to permit meaningful review)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (deference to district court's sentencing judgment and explanation requirements)
United States v. Al-Maliki, 787 F.3d 784 (6th Cir. 2015) (no binding rule requiring courts to consider unraised matters sua sponte)
United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (district court need not ritualistically recite each § 3553(a) factor)
United States v. Smith, 958 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2020) (recital that court considered § 3553(a) factors can be sufficient)