United States v. Keith Bradford, 697 F. App'x 479

Keith Bradford pleaded guilty in 2012 to conspiring to possess and distribute heroin and was originally given an advisory Guidelines range of 151–188 months.
The district court granted the government’s substantial-assistance motion and sentenced Bradford to 100 months and five years supervised release (30 months below the original Guidelines range).
Amendment 782 retroactively lowered Bradford’s guideline range to 130–162 months, making him eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Bradford moved for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction, seeking a reduction proportional to the original substantial-assistance departure; the government conceded eligibility but opposed a reduction based on Bradford’s post-plea conduct, criminal history, and prior benefit from substantial assistance.
The district court found Bradford eligible for a reduction "comparably less than the amended guideline range," but denied relief after weighing the § 3553(a) factors, public safety, Bradford’s disciplinary record in prison (including violence, possession of contraband, and termination from RDAP), and prior convictions committed while on supervision.
On appeal Bradford argued the court erred by relying on pre-sentencing conduct (he said this turned the proceeding into a de facto resentencing under Dillon). The Eighth Circuit remanded for the district court to state reasons, then affirmed after the court explained its reasoning.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bradford was eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction after Amendment 782	Bradford: Amendment 782 lowered his Guidelines range and he should be eligible for a proportional reduction given his prior substantial-assistance departure	Gov: Agreed Bradford was eligible but opposed a reduction on discretionary grounds (post-plea conduct, criminal history, prior benefit)	Court: Bradford is eligible (a reduction "comparably less than the amended guideline range" under § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B))
Whether the district court abused its discretion by considering pre-sentencing conduct (thus effecting a plenary resentencing)	Bradford: Considering prior convictions and conduct committed while on supervision improperly converted the § 3582(c)(2) proceeding into a full resentencing in violation of Dillon	Gov: District court may consider § 3553(a) factors, including criminal history and recidivism; post-sentencing conduct also permissible	Court: No abuse of discretion; consideration of pre-sentencing convictions relevant to § 3553(a) and permitted (Dillon does not bar weighing those factors in deciding whether a reduction is warranted)

United States v. Koons, 850 F.3d 973 (8th Cir. 2017) (describing § 3582(c)(2) as a limited exception to finality and explaining reduction framework)
United States v. Grant, 703 F.3d 427 (8th Cir. 2013) (requiring district courts to state reasons for denials of § 3582(c)(2) motions)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (holding § 3582(c)(2) proceedings are limited adjustments, not full resentencings)
United States v. Boyd, 835 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2016) (permitting district courts broad discretion to deny § 3582(c)(2) reductions based on § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Jones, 836 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2016) (explaining courts may conclude § 3553(a) factors justify no reduction despite guideline amendment)
United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming consideration of criminal history and other factors in § 3582(c)(2) decisions)
United States v. Osborn, 679 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2012) (same conclusion on district court discretion under § 3582(c)(2))