United States v. Lyons, 25 F.4th 342

Background

In 2009 Lyons pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute ≥50 grams of crack cocaine and to a §924(c) firearms offense; the Government agreed as part of the plea to not pursue a previously-filed §851 information that would have increased the statutory minimum.
At sentencing the district court accepted the plea and imposed 140 months on the drug count and a consecutive 60 months on the firearm count; the Government never moved to dismiss the §851 information and Lyons did not object or appeal.
Lyons’s sentence was later reduced to 120 months under Amendment 782; after the First Step Act (FSA) §404 he moved for a further reduction to 84 months (new guidelines range 84–105 months), citing §3553(a) factors and rehabilitation.
The Government conceded FSA eligibility but opposed relief, arguing Lyons’s current sentence remained within the new statutory range, an §851 enhancement could have been pursued, and Lyons’s criminal history supported denial.
The district court found Lyons eligible but denied relief in its discretion, reasoning the plea agreement (and the previously-filed §851 information) were factors it could have considered at the original sentencing; Lyons appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court may consider an unused §851 enhancement when deciding an FSA §404 reduction	The court may consider the unused enhancement because the Government had followed §851 procedures and the enhancement could have been applied at original sentencing	Lyons: the Government agreed to dismiss the §851 information as part of the plea; the court should not rely on that hypothetical enhancement	The court may consider the unused §851 enhancement as part of the original-sentencing context; no abuse of discretion in doing so
Whether the plea waiver or plea terms barred Lyons’s FSA motion	Government did not press waiver as a basis to deny relief in district court	Lyons: waiver and plea concessions should not prevent a merits FSA reduction	The district court’s order did not rest on the waiver; the court declined to decide waiver as a bar and did not err by not treating waiver as dispositive
Whether eligibility under FSA §404 entitles Lyons to a reduction and whether the district court misapplied Hegwood	Lyons is eligible but reduction is discretionary; factors (including hypothetical §851) justify denial	Lyons: eligibility + lowered guidelines + rehabilitation support a reduction to 84 months	Eligibility is not entitlement; under Hegwood courts resentence "as if" original conditions existed and may deny relief in discretion; denial affirmed
Whether the district court improperly ignored Lyons’s post‑conviction rehabilitation or misapplied Hegwood	Government argued original-sentencing context and criminal history could be considered; cited limits on considering post-sentencing conduct	Lyons: court should weigh reduced guidelines and rehabilitation under §3553(a)	Court acted within discretion; Hegwood permits treating original sentencing conditions as in place and considering criminal-history-related factors; no error

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2019) (framework for FSA §404 resentencing: resentence "as if" original conditions were in place except FSA change)
United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2019) (standard of review and eligibility discussion for First Step Act reductions)
United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2020) (eligibility under FSA does not guarantee entitlement to a reduction)
United States v. Stewart, 964 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2020) (de novo review applies to statutory-interpretation issues in FSA resentencing)
United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933 (5th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
United States v. Cooley, 590 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2009) (addresses plea-waiver and collateral-attack waiver principles)
United States v. Abdul‑Ali, 19 F.4th 835 (5th Cir. 2021) (discusses discretion in FSA resentencing)
United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2006) (criminal history is a proper sentencing consideration)