United States v. Verdin-Garcia, 824 F.3d 1218

Three defendants (Molina, Verdin-Garcia, Romero) sentenced to multiple life terms for major drug offenses later sought sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) after U.S.S.G. Amendments 782 & 788 lowered drug base offense levels.
Each defendant asked the district court to reduce their life sentences to 360 months (the new low-end of their amended guidelines range).
District courts denied all three motions, stating they considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and emphasizing defendants’ leadership roles, involvement of young people and weapons, lack of remorse, and ongoing criminal behavior.
Defendants argued on appeal that district courts erred by failing to address material, nonfrivolous post-sentencing rehabilitation and broad policy-based arguments (e.g., empirical basis of quantity levels, resource costs, deterrence, aging/recidivism).
The Tenth Circuit reviewed scope of § 3582(c)(2) de novo and denial of relief for abuse of discretion, and affirmed the district courts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of judge's explanatory duty at § 3582(c)(2) proceedings	Defendants: courts must address all material, nonfrivolous arguments when denying a reduction	Courts must explicitly reject or respond to each such argument	Rejected — § 3582(c)(2) requires consideration of § 3553(a) but not the § 3553(c) explanation requirement; no duty to address every argument
Whether § 3553(c) obligation applies to sentence-reduction motions	Defendants: § 3553(c)’s requirement to state reasons applies to reduction proceedings	Statutory text omits § 3553(c); only § 3553(a) is incorporated into § 3582(c)(2)	Held for government — § 3553(c) does not apply; only consideration of § 3553(a) is required
Role of post-sentencing conduct in reduction decisions	Defendants: post-sentencing rehabilitation and empirical/policy data warrant reduction	District courts may consider such evidence but are not required to do so	Court: post-sentencing conduct is permissibly considered (may), not mandatory
Adequacy of district court reasoning for appellate review	Defendants: lack of detailed response to policy arguments prevents meaningful review	District courts need only provide a sufficient rationale; need not address every argument	Affirmed — rational basis shown; failure to discuss every policy argument not an abuse of discretion

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§ 3582(c)(2) motions are sentence-modification proceedings, not new sentencings)
Ruiz-Terrazas v. United States, 477 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2007) (§ 3553(c) requires only a general statement of reasons at original sentencing)
Middagh v. United States, 594 F.3d 1291 (10th Cir. 2010) (extent of explanation under § 3553(c) depends on circumstances)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (importance of articulated reasons to appellate review and perception of fairness in sentencing)
Rhodes v. United States, 549 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for scope of district court authority under § 3582(c)(2))
Sharkey v. United States, 543 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008) (denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Verdin-Garcia v. United States, 516 F.3d 884 (10th Cir. 2008) (background on defendants’ original convictions and sentencing)
United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2013) (contrasting circuit view on requirement to address arguments)
United States v. Howard, 644 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2011) (district court must provide some reason for denial but need not explicitly reject every argument)
United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 2010) (similar: require some explanation, not line-by-line rebuttal)
United States v. Marion, 590 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2009) (same approach to explanatory burden in reduction proceedings)