United States v. James Boyd, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7297

James William Boyd pleaded guilty to possession of pseudoephedrine knowing it would be used to make methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2)) and was sentenced in May 2010 to 87 months (bottom of then-guidelines range).
Amendment 782 retroactively lowered the applicable Guidelines ranges effective Nov. 1, 2015; Boyd moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence to 70 months (the lowest amended range and the maximum reduction available).
The district court found Boyd eligible for a discretionary reduction but denied the motion based on Boyd’s post-sentencing prison misconduct.
Boyd’s relevant post-sentencing conduct: (1) Jan. 2013 conviction for possessing a contraband cell phone (violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2)), resulting in a consecutive seven-month sentence; (2) Nov. 2013 finding of possession of a weapon (a sharpened plastic clothes hanger) in his cell.
The district court concluded these violations indicated unwillingness to conform behavior to law and presented a danger to the community, and that a sentence reduction would be inappropriate after considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the § 3582(c)(2) reduction because the post-sentencing conduct was properly considered and the court’s explanation permitted meaningful appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction after considering Boyd’s post-sentencing prison misconduct	Boyd argued the two misconduct incidents do not show he would be dangerous if released and that his later programming participation shows rehabilitation	The government (and district court) argued the contraband phone conviction and weapon possession show unwillingness to follow law and pose a danger, justifying denial after § 3553(a) review	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; district court permissibly considered post-sentencing conduct and gave adequate reasons to deny the reduction

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (explains limits and procedures for sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2))
United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 2010) (discusses reviewability and adequacy of district court explanations when denying § 3582(c)(2) relief)