United States v. Michael Johnson, 17-5165

Michael Johnson was convicted in 2005 of drug and firearms offenses, including a § 924(c) count, and originally sentenced to 360 months (300 concurrent + 60 consecutive).
On appeal, his career-offender enhancement was vacated and he was resentenced in 2009; the Guidelines range was recalculated at 200–235 months, but the district court imposed 300 months based on public protection and criminal history.
Johnson later sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) after guideline amendments (new range 160–185 months, government conceded eligibility but opposed reduction on § 3553(a) grounds).
Johnson submitted evidence of extensive post-sentencing rehabilitation (work history, certificates, few nonviolent infractions, transfer to lower security) and letters attesting to his reform.
The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion in a one-page order, stating the § 3553(a) factors—particularly the need to protect the public—counseled against reducing the sentence below 300 months. Johnson appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by failing to consider post‑sentencing rehabilitation when ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion	Johnson: Pepper requires consideration of post‑sentencing rehabilitation and the court relied on its 2009 reasoning to reject such evidence	Government/District Court: Pepper governs resentencing after vacatur, not § 3582(c)(2); district court did consider filings and declined reduction based on § 3553(a) factors	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; Pepper is inapposite and the court did not apply an erroneous legal standard
Whether district court abused discretion in denying sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2)	Johnson: rehabilitation and amended range warrant reduction (possibly immediate release)	Government: § 3553(a) factors and defendant’s violent/criminal history justify denying reduction	Affirmed — district court permissibly weighed § 3553(a) and public protection concerns and declined reduction

Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (district courts on resentencing may consider post‑sentencing rehabilitation)
United States v. Worley, 453 F.3d 706 (6th Cir. 2006) (limits on considering post‑sentencing rehabilitation in certain contexts)
United States v. Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2009) (district court not required to state reasons for rejecting every sentencing argument)
United States v. Curry, 606 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) decisions: abuse of discretion)
United States v. Webb, 760 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2014) (appellate reversal only when firmly convinced a mistake was made)