## Facts

- In 2007, Carlos Concepcion pleaded guilty to distributing 5 or more grams of crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- In 2009, the district court sentenced him to 228 months’ imprisonment; his advisory Guidelines range rose to 262–327 months because he was treated as a career offender.
- The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 increased crack-quantity thresholds that trigger higher statutory penalties, but initially did not apply retroactively.
- In 2018, the First Step Act authorized courts to “impose a reduced sentence” for certain crack convictions “as if” the Fair Sentencing Act’s relevant provisions had been in effect at the time of the offense.
- In 2019, Concepcion moved for relief under First Step Act § 404(b), asserting his offense was covered and arguing that the Fair Sentencing Act would lower his Guidelines range; he also urged consideration of intervening developments, including that he would not now be a career offender and that he had rehabilitated while incarcerated.
- The government conceded eligibility but argued against a reduction, noting the existing sentence fit within the recalculated range and citing negative aspects of his prison record.

## Issues

1. Whether First Step Act § 404(b) permits a district court deciding whether to reduce a sentence to consider intervening changes in law or fact, including nonretroactive legal changes and post-sentencing rehabilitation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held that § 404(b) allows district courts to consider intervening changes in law or fact when exercising discretion to reduce a sentence.
- The Court rejected a categorical rule that courts cannot consider non–Fair Sentencing Act legal changes (including changes affecting career-offender status) or post-sentencing conduct.
- The Court emphasized that § 404 provides discretion, not an entitlement to a reduction, and that courts need only give a brief explanation showing consideration of the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress authorizes a court to “impose a reduced sentence,” courts generally may consider the full range of relevant sentencing information unless Congress clearly limits that discretion.
- Under § 404(b), the “as if” clause requires recalculating the defendant’s statutory penalties and Guidelines range to reflect the Fair Sentencing Act’s changes as the retroactive baseline.
- After establishing eligibility and the Fair Sentencing Act baseline, the court may consider intervening changes in law or fact when deciding whether to reduce the sentence and by how much, even if those legal changes are not independently retroactive.
- Section 404(c) confirms that courts are not required to reduce any sentence under the First Step Act.
- A district court is not required to conduct a plenary resentencing or to provide point-by-point responses, but must demonstrate reasoned consideration of the parties’ material arguments.

## Conclusion

The Court held that First Step Act § 404(b) authorizes district courts, when deciding whether to reduce a covered crack-cocaine sentence, to consider intervening legal and factual developments in addition to applying the Fair Sentencing Act’s retroactive baseline, and it remanded for the district court to exercise that discretion under the correct standard.


Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022)