United States v. Leobardo Hernandez-Marfil, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10260

Hernandez-Marfil pled guilty in Dec 2013 to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; guideline offense level was 33, Criminal History I, range 135–168 months.
Sentencing Commission proposed Amendment 782 reducing offense level to 31 and guideline range to 120–135 months; parties requested a two-level reduction pre-sentencing.
District court imposed a 128-month sentence (7-month downward variance), stating it had sentenced "as if" Amendment 782 were already in place.
After Amendment 782 took effect, Hernandez-Marfil moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence to 120 months (the amended guideline minimum).
The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion, noting it had already given Hernandez-Marfil the "practical benefit" of the amendment and was aware of his prison conduct.
Probation reported Hernandez-Marfil had one minor conduct violation and otherwise participated in education and worked as a recreation orderly; the district court acknowledged good conduct but declined reduction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion in denying § 3582(c)(2) reduction	Hernandez-Marfil: eligible for reduction; district court failed to give effect to Amendment 782 and did not adequately consider post‑sentencing good conduct	Government/District Court: court already gave the practical benefit of Amendment 782 and considered prison conduct but decline is discretionary	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Whether defendant is entitled as of right to § 3582(c)(2) reduction	Hernandez-Marfil: contends entitlement given amended guideline lowers range	Government: § 3582(c)(2) affords eligibility but not entitlement; court has discretion	Court confirms eligibility is not entitlement; reduction discretionary
Whether district court had to give additional weight to post‑sentencing rehabilitation	Hernandez-Marfil: urged consideration of post‑sentencing conduct and low recidivism risk	Government: court considered record and was not required to reduce sentence further	Court: district court may consider rehabilitation but is not required to reduce sentence; here it considered conduct and acted within discretion
Whether the 128‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable under amended guidelines	Hernandez‑Marfil: sought guideline minimum of 120 months	Government: 128 months lies within amended guideline range and is presumptively reasonable	Court: affirms; presumes within‑Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable

United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) is abuse of discretion)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse of discretion standard and substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Cole, 721 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2013) (examples of substantial procedural error)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness inquiry when no procedural error)
United States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2014) (eligibility under § 3582(c)(2) does not guarantee reduction)
United States v. Johnson, 703 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2013) (district court discretion to deny § 3582(c)(2) reduction)
United States v. Woodard, 675 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 2012) (presumption that within‑Guidelines sentences are substantively reasonable)
United States v. Parker, 762 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2014) (court may consider but is not required to reduce sentence based on post‑sentencing rehabilitation)
Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (trial courts may consider post‑sentencing rehabilitation)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (procedural framework for § 3582(c)(2) reductions)