Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of discretion a district court’s decision to deny a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” Sharkey, 543 F.3d at 1238. We construe liberally pleadings filed by pro se litigants. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991). Amendment 706 lowered the base offense level for drug offenses involving crack cocaine. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (2007); U.S.S.G. Supp. to App. C, Amend. 706 (Nov. 1, 2007). When, as here, a “motion for sentence reduction is not a direct appeal or a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the viability of [the court erred by not considering his exemplary postconviction conduct, we first note that he did not raise this claim in the district court. Consequently, we do not consider it. See United States v. Green, 175 F.3d 822, 837 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, because the district court did not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report (B) holding defendant waived alleged factual inaccuracies in presentence report by failing to raise them in district court (C) holding that the district court committed plain error in relying solely on the factual description in the presentence report (D) holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court (E) holding that express adoption of factual findings in presentence report is sufficient
Output (English): holding that the district court committed plain error in relying solely on the factual description in the presentence report