United States v. Michael Reed, 403 F. App'x 965

Reed, a federal prisoner, challenges a district court denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence and his motion to reconsider.
Reed is serving a 240-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute less than five grams of cocaine base.
In March 2008 Reed filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion based on Amendment 706 lowering base offense levels for cocaine-base offenses.
Reed argued the district court abused its discretion by not stating reasons, by giving only a general reference to § 3553(a) factors, and by asserting public-safety concerns without record support.
Reed also argued he was improperly denied counsel and not allowed to respond to the Government’s opposition.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion and he had no entitlement to appointed counsel or a hearing in this context.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion under § 3582(c)(2).	Reed argues abuse due to lack of explicit reasons and failure to adequately consider § 3553(a).	Court considered § 3553(a) factors and public safety before denial.	No abuse; factors were implicitly considered.
Whether lack of appointment of counsel affected the decision.	Reed seeks appointment of counsel for § 3582(c)(2) proceedings.	No right to counsel in § 3582(c)(2); plain error not shown.	No plain error; no right to counsel in this context.
Whether Reed was entitled to respond to the Government’s opposition.	Reed contends he should have had an opportunity to respond.	Response rights not mandated; no hearing required.	No entitlement to response or an additional hearing; court lacked duty to grant more time.

United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for § 3582(c)(2) motions; implicit § 3553(a) consideration sufficient)
United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 1995) (explicit consideration of § 3553(a) factors in discretionary determinations)
Puckett v. United States, 559 U.S. 1200 (Supreme Court 2009) (plain-error standard for lack of counsel considerations in certain contexts)