United States v. Figueroa, 714 F.3d 757

Figueroa pled guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced in 2008 to 150 months.
The government’s sentencing estimate of 141 grams guided Figueroa’s base offense level and total advisory range.
In 2011 Figueroa moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 750, arguing a lower amended range applied.
The district court found Figueroa eligible for a reduction but declined to reduce the sentence because post-conviction conduct showed threat to the community.
The district court identified a proposed amended range of 97–121 months based on the 141-gram finding and Amendment 750.
Figueroa appealed, contending the district court erred in the procedure and consideration of post-conviction conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused discretion denying the reduction	Figueroa argues the court erred by not reducing the sentence despite eligibility.	The United States contends the court properly exercised discretion given post-conviction danger.	No; district court did not abuse its discretion.
Whether a hearing was required or additional evidence needed on MDC conduct	Figueroa asserts a hearing or further substantiation was necessary.	The court acted properly without a hearing or further evidence.	No; no hearing or extra evidence was required.
Whether post-conviction conduct can affect eligibility under 1B1.10	Figueroa contends post-conviction conduct should not influence eligibility.	Post-conviction conduct is a relevant factor under 1B1.10 when determining eligibility.	Yes; district court properly considered post-conviction conduct.

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (relevance of post-sentencing conduct under §3582(c)(2))
United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for §3582(c)(2) decisions)
In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (scope of district court’s discretion in reducing sentences)