Motion for a sentence reduction under 18 USC § 3582(c)(2); Procedural reasonableness; Reduction of two criminal history points under USSG Manual § 4A1.1(d); Obstruction of justice enhancement (§ 3C1.1); The “law of the case” doctrine; Substantive reasonableness; § 3553(a)(2)

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court affirmed the district court’s decision to resentence defendant-Obi under the amended guidelines at the top of his range and to include a two-level enhancement for “obstruction of justice” in doing so. Obi pled guilty to providing a woman with a fatal dose of heroin and was sentenced to 300 months. He asked for a sentence reduction under an amendment to the guidelines (Amendment 821) providing that “a defendant no longer receives additional criminal history points for committing a crime while serving another sentence unless the defendant had seven or more other” such points. The district court recalculated a range of 235 to 293 months. It sentenced him to 293 months. Obi challenged the sentence as both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He objected to the district court’s inclusion of a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice in the offense-level calculation. This enhancement had been included in each of his prior sentencings. He based his argument on language in one of his prior appeals, Obi II, invoking the law of the case doctrine. But the court noted that “the opinion repeatedly stated that it did not decide—and did not need to decide—the obstruction issue.” And it concluded that “Obi II did not hold the obstruction-enhanced offense level of 37 to be erroneous. Nor did the retroactive guidelines amendment Obi relied on for his § 3582(c)(2) motion affect his offense level.” As a result, the district court committed no procedural error by including the enhancement in its calculations. As for Obi’s substantive reasonableness argument, the court first decided to assume that it could “reach a substantive reasonableness challenge to a § 3582(c)(2) ruling[.]” It then found “no basis for relief.” It considered the district court’s review of the § 3553(a) factors and emphasized the “‘highly deferential review’” given to a district court’s “‘reasoned discretion’” when considering those factors. The district court considered the seriousness of the crime, along with Obi’s failure to intervene in a death that was preventable. The district court “decided that Obi’s ‘horrible’ and ‘ruthless’ crime—which included ‘having sex with the victim while she was under the influence of heroin, indeed dying,’ and then making her ‘available’ for his friend while in that same state—justified the 300-month sentence.” The court determined that it “had ‘ample reasons’ to conclude Obi deserved a within-guidelines sentence.”