Concepcion v. United States

142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The First Step Act authorizes district courts to reduce the prison sentences of defendants convicted of certain offenses involving crack cocaine. The Act allows a district court to impose a reduced sentence “as if ” the revised penalties for crack cocaine enacted in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 were in effect at the time the offense was committed. D pleaded guilty to one count of distributing five or more grams of crack cocaine. D admitted that he sold 13.8 grams of crack cocaine, and he was sentenced in 2009 to 19 years (228 months) in prison. D qualified as a “career offender.” The career offender provision, together with other enhancements, increased Concepcion’s Guidelines range from 57 to 71 months to 262 to 327 months. One year after D was sentenced, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 which increased the amount of crack cocaine needed to trigger the 5-to-40-year sentencing range from 5 grams to 28 grams. D was not eligible for retroactive relief because he was sentenced under the career offender enhancement, but he became eligible to have his sentence reduced in 2018 when Congress passed the First Step Act. D filed a pro se motion. D contended that retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act lowered his Guidelines range from 262 to 327 months to 188 to 235 months. Pt conceded D’s eligibility for relief but D’s original sentence of 228 months fell within the new Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months. D argued that he would no longer be considered a career offender under the amended Guidelines because one of his prior convictions had been vacated and his remaining convictions would no longer be considered crimes of violence that trigger the enhancement. D claims the revised Guidelines range should be 57 to 71 months. D pointed to post-sentencing evidence of rehabilitation and his successful completion of drug and vocational programming, as well as his stable reentry plan. D also submitted a letter from a Bureau of Prisons chaplain who attested to D’s spiritual growth while incarcerated. The District Court denied D’s motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that a district court decides whether a movant should be resentenced at all, considering only the changes wrought by the Fair Sentencing Act. If the district court answers in the affirmative it may then, in its discretion, consider new factual or legal developments in determining how to resentence the movant. D appealed.