Opinion ID: 3209137
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Nature of a Motion for a Sentence Reduction

Text: Section 3582(c)(2) invites a motion for a sentencing modification, not a new sentencing proceeding. Dillon, 560 U.S. at 825. These sentencemodification proceedings “are not constitutionally compelled” but rather represent “a congressional act of lenity intended to give prisoners the benefit of later enacted adjustments.” Id. at 828. It follows that the requirements imposed on the court at these proceedings cannot be greater than those imposed at an original sentencing. When a district court initially imposes a sentence within the proper -6- guidelines range it must “state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). Section 3553(c) does not go so far as to require the court to address every material, nonfrivolous argument raised by the defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Ruiz-Terrazas, 477 F.3d 1196, 1199 (10th Cir. 2007) (A district court must “provide only a general statement of the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); United States v. Middagh, 594 F.3d 1291, 1296 (10th Cir. 2010) (“The extent of explanation necessary to satisfy § 3553(c) will depend on the circumstances. The more obvious the reasons for the sentence, the less the need to announce them.”). There is no support for the suggestion that the court’s task is greater when a motion for a sentence reduction is filed.