Sentence reductions under new rules

1. Whether a district court satisfies the individualized-consideration requirement of Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481 (2022), when it denies a motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) by relying exclusively on original offense conduct that was already weighed at initial sentencing — while giving no discernible, independent weight to the Sentencing Commission's retroactive policy judgment embodied in Amendment 821 or to the defendant's post-sentencing rehabilitation — where those are the only material developments since sentencing. 2. Whether the abuse-of-discretion standard permits a district court to deny a concededly eligible, unopposed request for a modest five-month sentence reduction under Amendment 821, Part B, U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, where the court originally varied downward based on the same mitigating factors it then refused to credit in the § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, and where the only changes since original sentencing were (1) a lower amended guideline range and (2) exemplary prison conduct.