United States v. Wilson, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9797

Wilson challenges district court denial of a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction following Amendment 750.
Original conviction: one count of distributing 114.64 g crack and 160 g cocaine; sentencing 200 months in 2005.
Post-sentencing reductions: 2008 reduction to 168 months after amendments 706/713; 2011 amendment 750 proposed further reduction.
District court calculated 2011 amended Guidelines range as 130–162 months but declined reduction below 168 months.
Court reviews for abuse of discretion; considers post-sentencing conduct and 3553(a) factors; notes §3582(c)(2) authorizes, not requires, a reduction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the §3582(c)(2) reduction.	Wilson	Wilson contends lower range warrants reduction.	No abuse of discretion
Whether pre-sentencing conduct can be considered in a §3582(c)(2) proceeding.	Wilson relied on Application Note 1(B)(iii) to exclude pre-sentencing conduct.	Court may consider post-sentencing conduct; not a resentencing.	Pre-sentencing conduct within §1B1.10(c) allowed to the extent post-sentencing factors apply
Whether post-sentencing conduct and §3553(a) factors support not reducing to amended range.	Wilson argues misconduct in 2006–2007 should not bar reduction.	District court properly weighed §3553(a) and post-sentencing conduct.	Court could reasonably deny reduction to 130–162 months

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (construction of § 3582(c)(2) and scope of §1B1.10)
United States v. Rivera, 662 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2011) (retroactive amendments allow but do not require reductions; consider post-sentencing conduct)
United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for § 3582(c)(2) motions)
Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard of review and scope of § 3582(c)(2) decisions)