Minimal §3553(a) Explanation and Post‑Sentencing Misconduct Can Justify Denying Amendment 821 Reductions Under §3582(c)(2)

Introduction

In United States v. Andre Wallace, No. 24-11963 (11th Cir. Mar. 21, 2025) (per curiam) (unpublished), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), despite the defendant’s eligibility following the Sentencing Commission’s 2023 Amendment 821. The panel—Judges Jill Pryor, Brasher, and Anderson—held that a brief explanation, grounded in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and referencing recent prison disciplinary misconduct, sufficed to support the district court’s discretionary decision to deny relief.

The case addresses two recurring issues in the wake of Amendment 821’s retroactivity: (1) how much explanation a district court must provide when it denies a § 3582(c)(2) reduction, and (2) the extent to which a court may rely on post-sentencing conduct—in particular, prison misconduct—to weigh the § 3553(a) factors at the discretionary step. The court’s answer reaffirms a low threshold for explanation and broad discretion to consider (and heavily weigh) post-sentencing conduct.

Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Andre Wallace’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. The district court had recognized that Amendment 821 lowered Wallace’s Guidelines range—from 177–191 months to 166–177 months—due to changes to “status points” under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. Nevertheless, after considering the § 3553(a) factors and Wallace’s recent drug-related prison disciplinary infraction, the court exercised its discretion to deny any reduction.

On appeal, Wallace argued the court failed to adequately consider the § 3553(a) factors and abused its discretion by relying solely on disciplinary information to reject a “moderate” reduction. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, holding:

A district court’s brief explanation, referencing § 3553(a) and linking post-sentencing conduct to the need to promote respect for the law, is sufficient.
Courts may consider (and assign substantial weight to) post-sentencing misconduct in assessing the § 3553(a) factors, including respect for law, deterrence, and a defendant’s history and characteristics.
No heightened explanatory requirement applies where a court denies—as opposed to grants—some reduction under § 3582(c)(2).
Given the standard of review, Wallace failed to show a clear error of judgment or other abuse of discretion.

Case Background and Issues

Wallace was originally sentenced based on a Guidelines range that included two criminal history “status points” for committing his offense while under a criminal justice sentence. Amendment 821 (effective Nov. 1, 2023) eliminated U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) and replaced it with § 4A1.1(e), limiting the impact of status points and applying retroactively. As a result, Wallace’s amended range dropped to 166–177 months.

At step one of the § 3582(c)(2) inquiry, the district court found Wallace eligible based on the amended range. At step two, after considering the § 3553(a) factors, the court denied any reduction, citing Wallace’s recent drug-related disciplinary infraction and the corresponding need to promote respect for the law. Wallace appealed, arguing:

Procedural error: insufficient consideration of § 3553(a); and
Substantive error: an abuse of discretion to deny a moderate reduction based solely on prison disciplinary information.

Standards of Review

Legal authority under § 3582(c)(2): de novo review.
Decision to grant or deny a reduction: abuse of discretion (including application of an incorrect legal standard, improper procedures, clearly erroneous fact-finding, or clear error of judgment).

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. Williams (11th Cir. 2009)

Williams explains that § 3582(c)(2) authority is limited to listed amendments that actually lower the applicable range and that a court need not recite each § 3553(a) factor if the record shows they were considered. This supports the court’s acceptance of a succinct, factor-referencing order.

United States v. Bravo (11th Cir. 2000)

Bravo established the two-step framework for § 3582(c)(2): (1) recalculate the range under the amended guideline (only substituting the amended provision), and (2) decide whether and how much to reduce, in light of § 3553(a). The panel applied Bravo’s framework and affirmed the district court’s exercise of discretion at step two.

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and Its Commentary

Section 1B1.10 is the governing policy statement for § 3582(c)(2) motions. The commentary instructs courts to consider public safety and allows consideration of post-sentencing conduct. The Eleventh Circuit relied on this to uphold the district court’s attention to Wallace’s recent prison misconduct.

Pepper v. United States (2011)

Pepper holds that post-sentencing rehabilitation can be highly relevant to § 3553(a) factors. By parity of reasoning, the panel recognized that negative post-sentencing conduct (e.g., drug-related infractions) can be highly relevant too. Importantly, post-Pepper, the Eleventh Circuit has emphasized the district court’s discretion in weighing such conduct.

United States v. Doyle (11th Cir. 2017)

Doyle clarifies that even after Pepper, the weight assigned to post-sentencing rehabilitation (or the lack thereof) lies within the district court’s discretion. The panel invoked this principle to reject Wallace’s claim that the district court over-relied on his disciplinary infraction.

Chavez-Meza v. United States (2018)

Chavez-Meza held that a district court’s succinct form order stating that it considered the motion, the policy statements, and § 3553(a) sufficed to explain a partial reduction. The Eleventh Circuit drew on this reasoning to conclude that no greater explanation is required for a denial than for a grant. A concise articulation—especially when tied to a specific § 3553(a) concern like promoting respect for law—passes muster.

United States v. Caraballo-Martinez (11th Cir. 2017) and United States v. Harris (11th Cir. 2021)

Caraballo-Martinez confirms abuse-of-discretion review for grant/denial decisions under § 3582(c)(2). Harris provides the working definition of abuse of discretion (wrong legal standard, improper procedure, clearly erroneous facts, or clear error of judgment). The panel used these to frame and reject Wallace’s assignments of error.

Legal Reasoning

Eligibility conceded; discretion disputed. The district court correctly determined that Amendment 821 applied to Wallace and lowered his Guidelines range. That cleared step one under Bravo.
Step two discretion: § 3553(a) and post-sentencing conduct. The district court explicitly referenced the § 3553(a) factors, emphasizing the need to promote respect for the law, and cited Wallace’s recent drug-related prison misconduct. Under § 1B1.10’s commentary and Pepper, a court may consider post-sentencing conduct, and under Doyle, it may assign substantial weight to that information.
Explanation sufficiency. The court’s explanation was brief but adequate. Williams permits brevity when the record shows consideration of the pertinent factors; Chavez-Meza approves minimal explanations in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. The panel underscored that there is no doctrinal requirement for lengthier reasoning when relief is denied versus granted.
No abuse of discretion. Wallace identified no incorrect legal standard, improper procedure, clearly erroneous finding, or clear error of judgment. The district court permissibly treated Wallace’s recent misconduct as undercutting respect for the law and, by implication, deterrence and his personal characteristics—core § 3553(a) considerations.

Impact and Significance

Although unpublished and thus non-binding, this decision provides practical guidance for § 3582(c)(2) motions predicated on Amendment 821 throughout the Eleventh Circuit:

Explanation threshold: District courts can deny a reduction with a succinct order that references § 3553(a) and identifies a salient factor (e.g., respect for the law), especially when tethered to concrete post-sentencing events. Extensive factor-by-factor discussion is unnecessary.
Post-sentencing conduct: Recent misconduct can be dispositive. Courts may assign substantial weight to infractions, particularly those suggesting ongoing criminal behavior or disregard for rules, to conclude that a lower sentence would not satisfy § 3553(a)’s purposes.
No entitlement to a reduction: Even when Amendment 821 lowers the range, relief is discretionary. A defendant’s existing sentence may remain above the amended range if the court denies relief at step two.
Appellate posture: Given abuse-of-discretion review and Chavez-Meza’s approval of minimal explanation, it will be difficult to overturn denials that briefly but clearly link the record to § 3553(a) considerations.

Practical Guidance for Practitioners

Build the step-two record. Do not assume eligibility will yield relief. Present robust evidence of sustained rehabilitation (programming, work history, discipline-free record, programming certificates, letters of support) and explain how that evidence maps onto the § 3553(a) factors.
Confront adverse disciplinary history directly. Address the recency, circumstances, severity, and mitigating context of any infractions; show trendlines (e.g., long-term compliance with a single dated incident) and steps taken afterward to remediate risk.
Invite targeted § 3553(a) analysis. Offer a concise, factor-oriented memorandum the court can easily reference, making it simple for the judge to note consideration of the pertinent factors on the record.
Manage expectations. A “moderate” reduction is not compelled by a modest range decrease. The court can deny any reduction if it finds that a lower sentence would not be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” under § 3553(a).

Complex Concepts Simplified

§ 3582(c)(2): A statute allowing courts to reduce a previously imposed sentence if the Sentencing Commission lowers the applicable guideline range and makes the change retroactive—subject to judicial discretion after considering § 3553(a).
Two-step Bravo framework:
1. Recalculate the guideline range using the amended provision(s) only.
2. Decide whether to reduce the sentence in light of § 3553(a) and policy statements (e.g., public safety, post-sentencing conduct).
§ 3553(a) factors: A set of statutory considerations—like offense seriousness, deterrence, respect for law, public protection, and the defendant’s history and characteristics—that guide sentencing and sentence-modification decisions.
Amendment 821 (status points): Before 2023, two “status points” were added if the defendant committed the offense while under a criminal justice sentence (e.g., probation). Amendment 821 limited and revised this rule, often reducing criminal history scores and ranges; it applies retroactively.
Abuse of discretion: An appellate standard that defers to the district court’s judgment unless it used the wrong law, followed improper procedures, made clearly erroneous factual findings, or made a clear error of judgment.
Unpublished, per curiam decision: A non-precedential opinion issued collectively by the panel without a named author; it guides practitioners but does not bind future Eleventh Circuit panels.

What This Opinion Does Not Do

It does not create a right to a reduction whenever Amendment 821 lowers a range.
It does not require district courts to address each § 3553(a) factor individually or to provide lengthy explanations for denying relief.
It does not limit consideration to rehabilitation evidence; negative behavior may be equally or more probative of § 3553(a) objectives.

Conclusion

United States v. Wallace reinforces an established but critical principle in sentence-modification practice: eligibility under § 3582(c)(2) does not equal entitlement. After Amendment 821, district courts retain broad discretion at step two to deny reductions based on the § 3553(a) factors, and they may rely heavily on post-sentencing misconduct to conclude that a lower sentence would not promote respect for the law, ensure adequate deterrence, or protect the public.

The Eleventh Circuit confirms that a succinct order—explicitly invoking § 3553(a) and linking the defendant’s recent prison behavior to those statutory aims—meets the explanatory requirement. For defendants seeking relief under Amendment 821, the decision underscores the importance of a clean disciplinary record (or careful mitigation of any infractions) and a well-developed narrative of rehabilitation that speaks directly to § 3553(a).