United States v. Faison, 670 F. App'x 721

Defendant Burudi Faison, proceeding pro se, moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on a retroactive Guidelines amendment.
The District Court (E.D.N.Y., Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein) denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion.
The District Court found Faison eligible for a reduction but declined to exercise its discretion to reduce his sentence.
The court relied on Faison’s criminal history and prison disciplinary infractions and considered the § 3553(a) factors and public-safety concerns.
Faison argued the denial violated his Fifth Amendment equal protection rights via a “class-of-one” theory.
The Second Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed the District Court’s order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in denying a § 3582(c)(2) reduction	Faison sought a reduction based on a retroactive Guidelines amendment	District Court: even if eligible, reduction discretionary and inappropriate given history and disciplinary record	Affirmed — denial was within discretion
Whether post-sentencing conduct may justify denial	Not directly disputed	District Court relied on disciplinary infractions and public-safety concerns as a basis to deny	Held that post-sentencing conduct is a proper and sufficient basis to deny a reduction
Whether a district court must grant a reduction when Guidelines are amended retroactively	Faison argued he should receive the benefit of the amendment	Government: amendment authorizes but does not require a reduction; district court discretion remains	Held that a retroactive amendment authorizes but does not compel a reduction
Whether denial violated equal protection (class-of-one)	Faison claimed he was treated differently from similarly situated inmates without rational basis	Government argued Faison failed to identify prima facie identical comparators and court had rational basis based on his record	Held that Faison failed to show prima facie identical comparators and court had a rational basis; equal protection claim rejected

United States v. Rios, 765 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) denials)
United States v. Christie, 736 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2013) (eligibility requirement for § 3582(c)(2) reductions)
United States v. Rivera, 662 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2011) (consideration of post‑sentencing behavior and public safety in § 3582 decisions)
Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (district judges may conclude reductions are inappropriate)
United States v. Wilson, 716 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2013) (retroactive Guidelines amendment authorizes but does not require a reduction)
United States v. Figueroa, 714 F.3d 757 (2d Cir. 2013) (post‑sentencing conduct can justify denial)
Analytical Diagnostic Labs, Inc. v. Kusel, 626 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) (definition of class‑of‑one equal protection claim)
Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (formulation of class‑of‑one theory)
Neilson v. DiAngelis, 409 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2005) (requirement that comparators be prima facie identical)