United States v. John Allen, 956 F.3d 355

Allen pleaded guilty in 2007 to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced as a career offender to 210 months imprisonment and 10 years supervised release.
In March 2019 Allen moved under §404 of the First Step Act to reduce his prison sentence and to lower his supervised‑release term (from 10 to 8 years).
The Government opposed a prison reduction (arguing the Guidelines range remained unchanged) but did not oppose reducing supervised release.
The district court reduced supervised release to eight years but denied a prison reduction, reasoning the First Step Act barred consideration of Allen’s post‑sentencing conduct.
Allen appealed solely the district court’s refusal to consider post‑sentencing conduct; the Government concedes the district court erred. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded.

Issue	Allen's Argument	Government / District Court Argument	Held
Whether courts may consider a defendant’s post‑sentencing conduct when deciding a sentence reduction under §404 of the First Step Act	Yes — courts should apply §3553(a) and may consider post‑sentencing conduct (and Pepper supports this)	District court held §404/§3582(c)(1)(B) precluded considering post‑sentencing conduct; Government initially relied on unchanged Guidelines	Courts may consider §3553(a) factors, including post‑sentencing conduct, when exercising discretion under §404
Whether §3582(c)(1)(B) itself limits what courts may consider in First Step Act motions	§3582(c)(1)(B) is merely procedural; substantive limits must come from §404, which is silent on excluding §3553(a) considerations	District court read limitations into §3582(c)(1)(B) by analogy to other §3582 subsections	§3582(c)(1)(B) does not import substantive limits; §3553(a) factors are available to guide the court’s discretion
Whether the case must be remanded for reconsideration consistent with the correct standard	Remand is required so the district court can consider §3553(a) factors (including post‑sentencing conduct)	Government concedes error; district court rulings based on incorrect legal premise	Reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the correct framework

Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (post‑sentencing conduct may be considered in assessing §3553(a) at resentencing)
United States v. Rose, 379 F. Supp. 3d 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (district court may apply §3553(a) and consider post‑sentencing conduct in First Step Act §404 proceedings)
United States v. Alexander, 951 F.3d 706 (6th Cir. 2019) (distinguishing plenary resentencing from limited sentence‑modification authority under §3582)
United States v. Christie, 736 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2013) (discussing application of sentencing standards when statutory framework changes)
United States v. Metcalfe, 581 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2009) (same)