United States v. Leon Greenwood, 521 F. App'x 544

Greenwood pleaded guilty 6/5/2008 to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine (18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C)) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
Conduct underpinning plea: September 2007 fight, fleeing, arrest, and discovery of three grams of crack, $261, and a loaded handgun.
PSR determined 4.3 grams of crack attributable to him; base offense level 19; 19 criminal history points (category VI) and aggressive prior record.
Guidelines range for the drug count was 63–78 months; two-level departure recommended due to underrepresentation of his criminal history, but not imposed.
Sentence consisted of 72 months for the drug charge plus 60 months consecutive for the firearm charge (total 132 months).
After the Fair Sentencing Act (2010) and related amendments, Amendment 750 (retroactive) and Amendment 759 changed crack guidelines; eligibility for retroactive reduction was analyzed under § 3582(c)(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Greenwood is eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2).	Government contends Greenwood is eligible but must satisfy the amended guidelines.
Greenwood argued for consideration of rehabilitation and post-sentencing conduct.	Greenwood is eligible for a reduction; the issue is whether discretion supports a reduction.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the reduction after considering § 3553(a) factors and public safety.	Government argues denial was proper given extensive history and risk to public safety.	Greenwood contends the court failed to give proper weight to rehabilitative efforts.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed given public safety concerns and offense history.
Whether the court properly considered post-sentencing conduct in the § 3582(c)(2) analysis.	Government relied on public safety factors; the court need not rely on post-sentencing conduct.	Greenwood emphasizes rehabilitative progress and post-sentencing improvements.	Court was not required to consider post-sentencing conduct but did; no abuse found.

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (limits discretion in applying retroactive guideline amendments under § 3582(c)(2))
Curry v. United States, 606 F.3d 323 (2010) (district court need not articulate every § 3553 factor; must reflect consideration of pertinent factors)
United States v. Washington, 584 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2007) (illustrates review of § 3582(c)(2) denial for abuse of discretion)
Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012) (retroactivity of crack cocaine amendments under § 3582(c)(2))
Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (2011) (post-sentencing rehabilitation may bear on § 3553 factors)