United States v. Edward Jones, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16252

Edward Jones pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine and was sentenced after the district court calculated a total offense level of 29 and Criminal History V, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 140–175 months.
At initial sentencing both sides sought a two-level variance anticipating Amendment 782 (retroactive two-level drug reduction); the court denied a variance and imposed a 140-month sentence, stating it would have imposed the same sentence even if Amendment 782 applied.
Amendment 782 became effective retroactively under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, reducing Jones’s amended Guidelines range to 120–150 months.
The district court issued an order acknowledging Jones’s eligibility for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction but exercised its discretion to deny any reduction based on § 3553(a) factors and aggravating considerations (uncharged criminal conduct, firearm involvement, post-escape drug activity, and lack of respect for law).
Jones appealed, arguing (1) under Dillon the court must impose the sentence that would have applied at the original sentencing had the amendment existed, (2) it is an abuse of discretion to refuse to reduce a sentence that was at the bottom of the original range after a retroactive two-level reduction, and (3) the court improperly relied on post-sentencing conduct not in the probation report.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dillon requires imposition of the sentence that would have applied at original sentencing if the Guidelines amendment existed	Jones: Dillon entitles eligible defendants to the sentence as if the amendment applied at original sentencing	Govt/District: § 3582(c)(2) permits, but does not mandate, reductions; courts must reweigh § 3553(a) factors	Court: Dillon does not mandate automatic imposition; district court properly exercised discretion and considered § 3553(a) before denying reduction
Whether maintaining the same low-end sentence after a two-level retroactive reduction is an abuse of discretion	Jones: Illogical and abusive to keep same sentence when range lowered	District: Permissible to reapply § 3553(a) and conclude same sentence remains sufficient despite revised Guidelines	Court: No abuse; district court fully explained reasons and considered aggravating factors
Whether the district court improperly relied on post-sentencing conduct absent probation-office reporting	Jones: Reliance on post-sentencing conduct was improper because probation report lacked such information	District: Defendant bears burden to show entitlement; lack of positive post-sentencing evidence is a legitimate consideration	Court: No error; district court may consider absence of positive post-sentencing rehabilitation when denying reduction

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) requires court to consider § 3553(a) factors and exercise discretion whether reduction is warranted)
United States v. Thomas, 775 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2014) (context for Amendment 782 application)
United States v. Hernandez-Marfil, 825 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 2016) (no abuse of discretion to deny further reduction after anticipated variance at initial sentencing)
United States v. Van Osten, [citation="639 F. App'x 393"] (8th Cir. 2016) (§ 3582 does not entitle a defendant to a reduction)