Opinion ID: 4564055
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rehabilitation Efforts

Text: Finally, Wilson challenges as an abuse of discretion the district court’s failure to mention Wilson’s post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts. Under Pepper, “[d]istrict courts post-Booker may consider evidence of a defendant’s postsentencing rehabilitation at resentencing and such evidence may, in appropriate cases, support a downward variance from the advisory Guidelines range.” Pepper, 562 U.S. at 504–05 (emphasis added); see also Smithers, 960 F.3d at 345; Allen, 956 F.3d at 358 (6th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act does not “prevent courts from considering post-sentencing conduct in assessing the § 3553(a) factors during a § 3582(c)(1)(B) sentence-modification proceeding.”). The district court was not required to consider in Wilson’s favor his GED diploma obtained during his eighteen years of incarceration or his job-skills training and other courses. Wilson alleges that, by not mentioning his post-rehabilitation efforts in a three-page-long Memorandum Opinion and Order, the district court abused its discretion. We disagree. But because we remand for resentencing on other grounds, we hold that the district court may—but is not required to—take into consideration Wilson’s rehabilitation effort. See Allen, 956 F.3d at 358. 19 No. 19-3471, United States v. Wilson