United States v. Frank Dickerson, Jr., 663 F. App'x 265

Frank D. Dickerson, Jr. was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute 500+ grams of cocaine and sentenced based on a Guidelines calculation attributing large quantities of cocaine to him.
Dickerson filed an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a sentence reduction under retroactive Amendment 782 (which reduced most drug-table base offense levels by two).
The presentence report attributed 551 kg of powder cocaine to Dickerson, but the sentencing court found by a preponderance of the evidence that at least 150 kg were attributable to him.
Under the Guidelines at sentencing, 150+ kg supported a base offense level of 38; Amendment 782 would lower the base level for that weight to 36, thereby lowering his applicable Guidelines range.
The district court denied Dickerson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, stating he appeared ineligible for a reduction without explaining the factual basis.
The Fourth Circuit found the district court relied on a factual error in denying relief, vacated the order, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dickerson is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendment 782	Amendment 782 lowers the drug-table base offense level for the drug weight the sentencing court attributed to Dickerson, making him eligible	District court concluded Dickerson was not eligible (briefly stated)	Court held Dickerson is eligible because Amendment 782 lowers his applicable Guidelines range
Whether district court abused its discretion in denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion	Denial was erroneous because it relied on incorrect factual premise about eligibility	District court’s terse finding justified denial	Court held denial was an abuse of discretion due to factual error and remanded
Whether, if eligible, reduction remains discretionary	Dickerson seeks relief consistent with policy statement	Government argues any reduction is discretionary per Dillon	Court recognized eligibility does not guarantee reduction and remanded for proper discretionary consideration
Standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) denial	N/A (appellant)	Appellee invoked district court’s discretion	Court reviews denial for abuse of discretion and factual findings for clear error; concluded abuse here

United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) and deference to district court’s factual findings)
United States v. Briley, 770 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2014) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (even if eligible under § 3582(c)(2), reduction remains discretionary and courts must consider whether to grant it)