United States v. Roberto Reese, 678 F. App'x 375

Roberto Reese pled guilty to RICO conspiracy and was sentenced following a PSR that set a total offense level of 31 and criminal-history category VI.
The district court granted the Government a §5K1.1 two-level downward departure for substantial assistance and separately granted a three-level variance for the same cooperation, producing a total offense level of 26 and a 132-month sentence later reduced to 117 months to credit state time.
Amendment 782 reduced offense-level increases for certain counts; the probation officer’s sentence modification report (SMR) recalculated an amended Guidelines range of 168–210 months and recommended a 105-month reduction after accounting for the prior departures/credits.
The Government agreed the amended Guidelines range was 168–210 months but argued only the two-level §5K1.1 departure should apply for §3582 purposes, producing an applicable amended range of 140–175 months and making Reese ineligible for a reduction because his imposed sentence (117 months) was below that range.
The district court denied Reese’s §3582(c)(2) motion without a hearing; Reese appealed, arguing the additional three-level variance for substantial assistance should be included under USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(B), and that the district court failed to explain its denial sufficiently.

Issue	Reese's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether a judge-granted variance for substantial assistance counts under USSG §1B1.10(b)(2)(B) so a §3582(c)(2) reduction may go below the amended Guidelines minimum	The judge’s three-level variance was granted for substantial assistance and thus should be treated like a §5K1.1 departure for §1B1.10(b)(2)(B) purposes	The §1B1.10(b)(2)(B) exception applies only where the original below-Guidelines sentence resulted from a government motion for substantial assistance (e.g., §5K1.1) — not a judge-granted defense variance	The court held the plain text of §1B1.10(b)(2)(B) requires a government motion; the judge’s variance cannot be included, so Reese is ineligible for a §3582 reduction because his imposed sentence is below the amended range.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to explain its denial of the §3582(c)(2) motion	Reese: the district court’s terse order did not show consideration of §3553(a) factors or provide adequate reasoning	Government: discretion to deny; no required detailed findings beyond showing consideration and reasoned basis	Court: While clearer explanation would be helpful, because the court was legally prohibited from reducing the sentence under §1B1.10(b)(2)(B), the denial was not an abuse of discretion.

United States v. Jackson, 751 F.3d 707 (6th Cir. 2014) (explaining limits on §3582(c)(2) reductions and §1B1.10(b)(2) constraints)
United States v. Washington, 584 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard for abuse of discretion review and interpretation of plain statutory language)
United States v. Howard, 644 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2011) (statutory authorization limits sentence modifications)
United States v. Taylor, 815 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 2016) (treats §1B1.10(b) as precluding reapplication of departures/variances except for government-moved substantial-assistance departures)
United States v. Smith, [citation="655 F. App'x 376"] (6th Cir. 2016) (§3582(c)(2) reduction requires consistency with Sentencing Commission policy statements)
United States v. Archer, [citation="362 F. App'x 491"] (6th Cir. 2010) (district court must show it considered §3553(a) factors and have a reasoned basis when modifying sentences)
United States v. Moncrief, [citation="350 F. App'x 994"] (6th Cir. 2009) (same as Archer on requirement that the record show consideration of arguments and factors)