Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404

Section 404(b) permits a court to reduce a sentence for a covered offense using the Fair Sentencing Act’s revised crack cocaine penalties.

United States v. Simons · filed 2019-04-22(b)

Section 404 of the First Step Act makes retroactive reforms enacted by the Fair Sentencing Act. It allows courts to impose reduced sentences on any prisoner who is still serving a sentence for a "covered offense" if that sentence was imposed before the Fair Sentencing Act's penalty structure applied. ... His term of imprisonment is reduced to time served.

Section 404 allows a court to decline a sentence reduction in its discretion when the sentence was based on a kidnapping resulting in death conviction.

United States v. Sellers · filed 2019-08-26

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not reversibly err in declining to reduce Sellers’ sentence as an exercise of discretion because that sentence was based on his conviction for kidnapping resulting in death.

Section 404(b) permits a sentence reduction based on retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act but does not authorize a full resentencing.

United States v. McKinney · filed 2019-05-09(b)

The cases referenced above have carefully considered the statutory language of both § 3582(c)(1)(B) and the First Step Act of 2018 and have persuasively concluded that plenary sentencing under the First Step Act is not authorized.

Section 404(b) permits a court reducing a sentence for a covered offense to recalculate the Guidelines range and, in the circumstances of this case, correct an acknowledged career offender error.

United States v. Black · filed 2019-06-07(b)

Because the First Step Act permits this Court to recalculate Black's applicable Guidelines range, the Court finds that Black's Guidelines range should not be based on the erroneous career offender enhancement.

Section 404 does not require a district court to recalculate a defendant’s guideline range when reducing a sentence.

United States v. Gangsta 'Ko-Loff Bishop Gospidon · filed 2020-02-11(b)

The district court did not err in granting Gospidon’s motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. For one, the First Step Act does not explain that the district court must recalculate a defendant’s guideline range for purposes of a sentence reduction under it.

Section 404 permits courts to consider developments after sentencing when deciding whether to reduce a sentence and requires an accurate amended guidelines calculation and renewed consideration of the § 3553(a) factors.

United States v. Martin · filed 2020-06-16(b)–(c)

As a result of these recent decisions, it is clear the district court here erred as a matter of law when it found it had to consider the law and facts as they existed at the time of Martin’s original sentencing in 2007.

Section 404 permits a court considering a sentence reduction to consider the defendant’s current advisory guideline range under the § 3553(a) factors.

United States v. Harris · filed 2020-06-05(b)

However, the § 3553(a) factors in First Step Act sentencing may include consideration of the defendant’s advisory range under the current guidelines.

Section 404(b) does not authorize a sentence reduction when the Fair Sentencing Act would have left the movant’s sentence unchanged.

United States v. Jackson · filed 2020-06-16(b)

If the movant’s sentence would have necessarily remained the same had the Fair Sentencing Act been in effect, then the district court lacks the authority to reduce the movant’s sentence.

Section 404(b) permits a court to reduce an eligible sentence below the revised guideline range.

United States v. Bell · filed 2020-07-21(b)

Here, we vacate the district court’s order granting Bell relief under § 404(b) of the First Step Act because, as in Jones, the record is ambiguous as to whether the court understood its authority to reduce his sentence below the revised guideline ... range.

Section 404 requires a district court to start with a properly calculated Guidelines range before imposing a new sentence.

United States v. Rogers · filed 2020-08-06

Before imposing a new sentence in response to a motion under the FSA, the district court is obliged to start with a properly calculated Guidelines range.

Section 404(b) permits a district court to reduce an eligible defendant’s sentence below the revised Sentencing Guidelines range.

United States v. Curry · filed 2020-08-12(b)

But the limitation in § 1B1.10(b) does not apply to motions under the First Step Act; district courts have the authority under § 404(b) to reduce an eligible movant’s sentence below his revised Guidelines range.

Section 404(b) permits a court to reduce a sentence for a covered offense even when the defendant’s guideline range remains unchanged.

United States v. Albert Stephens, Jr. · filed 2020-08-26(b)

In the instant case, the district court correctly acknowledged that Stephens was convicted of a “covered offense” and was eligible for relief under the First Step Act. Based upon our review of the record, however, it is unclear whether the district court understood that it had the authority to reduce Stephens’s sentence. The district court may have incorrectly concluded that Stephens was not eligible for a further reduction because his guideline range remained the same. Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, we vacate the district court’s order partially denying Stephens’s motion for a sentence reduction and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Section 404(b) permits a court to reduce a covered-offense sentence below the amended Guidelines range.

United States v. Harmon · filed 2020-09-03(b)

Here, the district court correctly found that Harmon was convicted of a covered offense and that it had authority to reduce his sentence. It is ambiguous, however, whether the district court understood that it had the authority to sentence Harmon below the low end of the Guidelines range.

Section 404(b) permits a district court to reduce a sentence below the revised guideline range.

United States v. James Earl Smith, Jr. · filed 2020-09-30(b)

Smith is quite right that the First Step Act allows a district court to impose a sentence below the guideline range.

Section 404(b) permits a court to reduce a covered sentence when the Fair Sentencing Act’s revised statutory penalties would have applied at the time of the offense.

United States v. Gillon · filed 2020-09-08(b)

Because Gillon’s sentence of 190 months of imprisonment exceeded the statutory mandatory-minimum sentence of 10 years of imprisonment provided in the Fair Sentencing Act, the district court had the authority to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act.

Section 404(b) permits a court to reduce a sentence for a covered offense when the Fair Sentencing Act lowers the applicable statutory penalty range.

United States v. Cain · filed 2020-09-10(b)

Because Cain’s offense had a statutory range of 10 years to life that was reduced, under the Fair Sentencing Act, to a range with a 5-year mandatory minimum, the district court had both the authority and ability to reduce Cain’s sentence.

Section 404(b) permits a district court to reduce a sentence for a covered crack cocaine offense when the sentence exceeds the statutory minimum that would apply under the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Jasmin · filed 2020-09-18(b)

Because Jasmin’s sentence of 163 months’ imprisonment exceeded the statutory mandatory-minimum sentence of 5 ... years of imprisonment provided in the Fair Sentencing Act, the district court had the authority to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act.

Section 404(b) authorizes a district court to reduce a sentence for a covered offense when the sentence exceeds the mandatory minimum available under the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Jackson · filed 2020-10-19(b)

Thus, the district court did not sentence him to the lowest statutory penalty available under the Fair Sentencing Act for his crack cocaine offense, and it accordingly had the authority to reduce his sentence.

Section 404(b) does not require a court to consider a lower guideline range based on intervening law unrelated to the Fair Sentencing Act when deciding whether to reduce a sentence.

United States v. Robinson · filed 2020-11-13(b)

Based on those cases, any argument by Robinson that the district court was required to consider the lower non-career offender guideline range that would apply if his original sentencing were in 2019, rather than 2010, is foreclosed as a matter of law pursuant to our rule of orderliness.

Section 404 permits a defendant to seek a reduction of supervised release, and the district court must address that request.

United States v. Batiste · filed 2020-11-13(b)

Because the order does not expressly reference Batiste’s request relative to his term of supervised release, however, we REMAND that portion of Batiste’s motion to the district court for consideration and disposition in accordance with this opinion.

Section 404 requires a court to determine an eligible defendant’s amended guidelines range before deciding whether to reduce the sentence.

United States v. Tanesha Holder · filed 2020-12-01(b)

When a defendant such as Holder is eligible for Section 404 relief, the First Step Act requires the court to determine the amended guidelines range before exercising its discretion whether to grant relief. A mistake in that determination, like any other guidelines mistake, is procedural error.

Section 404(b) permits a court to reduce a sentence for a covered offense, including its supervised release term, without being limited by the revised Guidelines range.

United States v. Razz · filed 2020-12-15(b)

The parties also agree, as do we, that the district ... court’s authority to reduce a sentence that was imposed for a covered offense (1) extends to any term of supervised release that was imposed as part of the sentence, and (2) is not limited by the movant’s revised Guidelines range.

Section 404(b) permits a discretionary sentence reduction based on the retroactive application of sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act, but does not require plenary resentencing under current guidelines.

United States v. Concepcion · filed 2021-03-15(b)

Consequently, the district court must place itself at the time of the original sentencing and keep the then-applicable legal landscape intact, save only for the changes specifically authorized by sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act.

Section 404(b) requires courts to account for the Fair Sentencing Act when recalculating the original sentencing range, but does not require a plenary resentencing based on other later changes in law.

United States v. Maxwell · filed 2021-03-19(b)

It tells the court to alter just one variable in the original sentence, not all variables. It asks the court to sentence Maxwell “as if” the crack-cocaine sentencing range had been reduced under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, not as if other changes had been made to sentencing law in the intervening years.

Section 404 does not allow a court to disregard the statutory minimum sentence for a powder-cocaine offense.

United States v. Dickerson · filed 2021-01-27

Nothing in the First Step Act allows a court to disregard statutory minimum sentences for powder-cocaine offenses.

Section 404(b) requires a court to reduce a covered sentence that exceeds the Fair Sentencing Act’s retroactive statutory maximum.

United States v. Chuck Collington · filed 2021-04-26(b)

We instead conclude that the district court’s overall sentencing authority is constrained by the retroactively applicable statutory maximums in § 841, such that the district court abused its discretion in letting stand a sentence that was made illegal under the Fair Sentencing Act.

Section 404(b) permits a district court to reduce an eligible defendant’s sentence below the revised Sentencing Guidelines range.

United States v. Chisolm · filed 2021-02-11(b)

If this is what the court meant, it was error because, as our decision in Jones made clear, the district court had the discretion to impose a sentence below Chisolm’s revised guidelines range.

Section 404 permits a district court to reduce an eligible movant’s sentence below the revised guideline range.

United States v. Bolden · filed 2021-04-07(b)

As we explained in Jones, nothing in the First Step Act bars a district court from reducing a movant’s sentence below the revised guideline range.

Section 404(b) does not authorize a plenary resentencing when a court decides a motion for a sentence reduction.

United States v. Bryan · filed 2021-02-12(b)

First, our precedent establishes that the district court was not authorized to conduct a plenary resentencing in the course of deciding whether to grant Bryan’s motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act.

Section 404(b) does not authorize a reduction when the existing sentence equals the minimum that would have applied under the Fair Sentencing Act, even for a covered offense.

United States v. Terrell · filed 2021-04-13(b)

Because Terrell’s current sentence of 20 years is equal to the lowest statutory penalty that would have been available under the Fair Sentencing Act, the district court lacked the authority to reduce his sentence.

Section 404(b) does not authorize a reduction when the original sentence remains the lowest available under the Fair Sentencing Act, based on the sentencing court’s prior drug-quantity finding.

United States v. Ford · filed 2021-05-06(b)

Applying these limitations, the district court had no authority under the First Step Act to reduce Ford’s life sentence. Based on Ford’s prior felony drug convictions and the sentencing court’s finding that Ford was responsible for 5.5 kilograms of crack cocaine, Ford’s sentence of life imprisonment is still the lowest possible penalty that would be available to him under the Fair Sentencing Act.

Section 404 permits a defendant with a covered offense to seek a reduction of a remaining supervised release term.

United States v. Jones · filed 2021-06-01(a)

The same is true here. The First Step Act gives Jones the opportunity to make his case for a reduction in what is left of his sentence, which is his five- year term of supervised release.

Section 404(b) requires a court considering a sentence reduction to apply sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act retroactively, but does not require it to revisit earlier sentencing decisions unaffected by those sections.

United States v. Burnell · filed 2021-06-29(b)

But § 404(b) only requires that a district court reassess the original sentence “as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act . . . were in effect at the time [] the covered offense was committed.” McDonald, 944 F.3d at 772 (quoting First Step Act § 404(b)).

Section 404(b) makes the Fair Sentencing Act’s changes to crack cocaine sentencing thresholds retroactive but does not require a court to revisit earlier sentencing decisions unaffected by those changes.

United States v. Aaron Anderson, Jr. · filed 2021-08-26(b)

The district court was correct: [Section] 404(b) only requires that a district court reassess the original sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed. As such, it makes retroactive only certain statutory changes pertaining to threshold crack cocaine weights triggering mandatory minimum sentences.

Section 404(b) permits a sentence reduction only to the extent that applying sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act would allow a lower sentence.

United States v. Ford · filed 2021-05-26(b)

In ruling on a defendant’s motion under section 404 of the First Step Act, a district court has limited authority to reduce a sentence “as if” sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act were in effect.

Section 404(b) permits a court to reduce an eligible defendant’s sentence but does not authorize vacating a plea agreement or convictions.

United States v. Wilcox · filed 2021-06-03(b)

The Act gives courts discretion to “impose a reduced sentence” under certain conditions. First Step Act, § 404(b), 132 Stat. at 5222. This text allows a court to reduce an eligible defendant’s sentence. It does not allow the court also to vacate a plea agreement and the defendant’s convictions.

Section 404(b) permits a sentence reduction based on retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act, but does not authorize revisiting a career-offender designation unaffected by that Act.

United States v. Collins · filed 2021-06-21(b)

The court lacked authority under the First Step Act to revisit Defendant’s career-offender designation because §§ 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act had no bearing on whether his prior felony convictions qualified as crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses under U.S.S.G § 4B1.1.

Section 404 sentence-reduction hearings do not allow defendants to collaterally attack offense conduct they accepted at their original sentencing.

United States v. Webb · filed 2021-07-19(b)

Yet Webb could not now use these transcripts to collaterally attack his offense conduct in the First Step Act sentence-reduction hearing.

Section 404 permits a district court to deny a sentence reduction after considering the parties’ arguments and explaining its reasons.

United States v. Cribbs · filed 2021-08-06

Having reviewed the record, “[w]e are satisfied that the district court conducted a complete review of [Cribb’s] Section 404 motion.” Id. at 489. First, the district court expressly stated that it had considered all of the parties’ arguments and carefully analyzed the § 3553(a) factors. Second, the court explained why it considered the nature and circumstances of Cribbs’s offense and his criminal history to be aggravating factors weighing against the grant of Cribbs’s motion to reduce his sentence.

Section 404 makes a defendant convicted of a covered narcotics conspiracy eligible for a discretionary sentence reduction, but does not require a reduction when a separate murder conviction drove the sentence.

Sanchez v. United States · filed 2021-11-10

Although by virtue of his “covered” § 846 conviction, Sanchez “is plainly eligible for relief, he is not necessarily entitled” to it.

Section 404 leaves sentence reductions to the court’s discretion, but that discretion does not permit a sentence above the retroactively applicable statutory maximum.

United States v. Nathaniel Richardson, Jr. · filed 2021-07-08(c)

Even where, as here, a defendant is eligible for relief under the First Step Act, whether to reduce the defendant’s sentence generally remains within the sentencing court’s discretion. United States v. Gravatt, 953 F.3d 258, 261, 264 (4th Cir. 2020); see § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222 (“Nothing in the section shall be construed to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.”). Nevertheless, as we recently held, a “district court’s overall sentencing authority is constrained by the retroactively applicable statutory maximums in [21 U.S.C.] § 841, such that the district court abuses its discretion in letting stand a sentence that was made illegal under the Fair Sentencing Act.” United States v. Collington, 995 F.3d 347, 357 (4th Cir. 2021).

Section 404 does not permit a defendant to relitigate a drug quantity determination made at sentencing in a motion for a sentence reduction.

United States v. Fulton · filed 2021-08-26

Here, by challenging the district court’s drug quantity determination, Fulton is essentially attempting to use his motion for a sentence reduction as a means of relitigating a determination made at sentencing; this he may not do.

Section 404(b) does not permit a sentence reduction below the applicable statutory minimum or a collateral attack on the original sentence.

United States v. Scott · filed 2022-04-29(b)

The statutory minimum is the lowest sentence available, see United States v. Taylor, 982 F.3d 1295, 1301–02 (11th Cir. 2020), and to the extent Scott now tries to collaterally attack his original sentence, he cannot do so through a motion like this one, see United States v. Moore, 963 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining how motions under the First Step Act are different from “original, plenary sentencing” proceedings); see also United States v. Denson, 963 F.3d 1080, 1089 (11th Cir. 2020) (refusing to entertain this type of challenge).

Section 404 does not permit a court to revisit original sentencing challenges unrelated to the section or later changes in law or fact.

United States v. Slaughter · filed 2023-07-27

The district court was not permitted to consider Slaughter’s challenges to his U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2(a)(1) enhancement and the court’s prior drug-quantity determination; these arguments, which are not premised upon section 404 or post-sentencing changes to applicable laws or facts, were matters for the original sentencing.

Section 404 permits a reduced sentence but does not authorize a district court to add new discretionary conditions of supervised release.

United States v. Newby · filed 2024-01-19

And the only type of modified “sentence” the First Step Act authorizes a district court to impose is a “reduced” one, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194. For that reason, the district court could not have imposed any new discretionary conditions of supervised release in Newby’s First Step Act proceeding.

Section 404(b) permits courts to reduce sentences for covered offenses but does not authorize them to reclassify felony convictions as misdemeanors.

United States v. Payne · filed 2022-11-30(b)

Thus, the First Step Act’s authorization for courts to “impose a reduced sentence” does not empower courts to reclassify a defendant’s felony offense as a misdemeanor.

Section 404(b) does not permit a court to relitigate an earlier drug-quantity finding when deciding a motion for a reduced sentence.

United States v. Jackson · filed 2023-02-03(b)

So Concepcion reinforces our conclusion in Jones that movants may not use a First Step Act proceeding to relitigate a drug-quantity finding.

A court considering a Section 404 sentence reduction need not resolve a disputed drug quantity when either proposed quantity permits a reduction.

United States v. Woods · filed 2023-02-28(b)

And, as in Russell, we need not resolve the proper drug amount issue about which the parties disagree. This is because, even if we use the larger, 285-gram amount, there is still ample room to reduce Woods’ extant 262 month sentence to the 120-month mandatory minimum sentence which would be ap- plicable even if the larger, 285 gram, amount is used.

Section 404(b) requires courts to use a drug-quantity finding that could have determined the original statutory penalty and does not authorize a reduction below the minimum that would have applied under the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Pinkney Clowers, III · filed 2023-03-14(b)

The First Step Act does not authorize a sentence reduction below the ... statutory minimum sentence that would have applied if the Fair Sentencing Act had been in effect when the movant committed his offense.

Section 404 does not permit a defendant to challenge the validity of a firearm conviction through a motion for a sentence reduction.

United States v. Cox · filed 2024-05-08

Insofar as Cox ar- gues that his conviction for the firearm offense is invalid because the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose it, section 404 of the Act does not permit relief, and he points to no intervening change in controlling law that entitles him to a sentence reduction for this offense.

Section 404(b) allows a court resentencing a defendant after revocation of supervised release to consider the Fair Sentencing Act’s retroactive penalty changes when classifying the original offense.

United States v. Jones · filed 2023-10-04(b)

Accordingly, at Jones’s revocation and sentencing hearings, the First Step Act would have allowed the district court to treat his ... original 2009 offense as a Class B felony, rather than a Class A felony.

Section 404 allows discretionary sentence reductions without requiring the prior sentence to be invalid or affecting the validity of the existing judgment.

Terril Edwards v. · filed 2024-04-16

This discretion indicates that Congress did not intend for the First Step Act to have any impact on the validity of the judgment being amended. And the plain language of the First Step Act does not require a showing that the prior sentence was invalid. See First Step Act § 404(a)–(c), 132 Stat. 5222. Accordingly, the plain language and structure of the First Step Act compel the conclusion that regardless of whether a court decides to exercise its discretion and resentence a prisoner under the First Step Act, the validity of the judgment pursuant to which the prisoner is confined is unaffected.

Section 404(b) does not authorize a sentence reduction below a mandatory minimum that would still apply under the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Caver · filed 2024-05-07(b)

If the Fair Sentencing Act’s changes would still trigger the same mandatory-minimum sentence that a district court originally imposed, a district court lacks discretion to reduce the defendant’s sentence below that minimum under the First Step Act.

Section 404(b) permits a sentence reduction only for a covered offense and does not allow a court to change sentences for counts that are not covered offenses.

United States v. Mickey Pubien · filed 2023-07-26(b)

Moreover, despite Pubien’s erroneous assertion to the contrary, Concep- cion did not abrogate Denson’s holding that a court may not change a defendant’s sentence on counts that are not “covered offenses,” and therefore no exception to the mandate rule applied.

Section 404(b) permits a district court to reduce a noncovered offense when its sentence functions as a package with a covered offense.

United States v. Nathaniel Richardson, Jr. · filed 2024-03-20(b)

We hold that the district court has the discretion to reduce both covered and noncovered offenses under the First Step Act if they function as a package.

Section 404(b) permits a court to reduce a sentence for a noncovered offense when it was part of a sentencing package with a covered offense.

United States v. Gordon · filed 2025-10-14(b)

Simply put, as the government concedes, the First Step Act’s text and context favor an interpretation permitting a court to reduce a sentence for a non-covered offense if that sentence was packaged with the sentence for a covered offense.

Section 404 determines whether an offense is covered by the amount of crack involved in the violation, rather than the amount charged in the indictment.

United States v. Blocker · filed 2019-04-25(a)

In short, the statute defines "covered offense" by reference to the "violation," not by reference to the "indictment." The statute thus adopts the offense-controls theory, not the indictment-controls theory.

Section 404(a) makes eligibility for a sentence reduction turn on whether the statute of conviction had its penalties modified by the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Wirsing · filed 2019-11-20(a)

All defendants who are serving sentences for violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(iii), and who are not excluded pursuant to the expressed limitations in Section 404(c) of the First Step Act, are eligible to move for relief under that Act.

Section 404(a) makes an offense eligible for resentencing based on the statute of conviction, regardless of the drug quantity stated in the presentence report.

United States v. Jackson · filed 2019-12-16(a)

It follows that whether an offense is “covered” depends only on the statute under which the defendant was convicted.

Section 404 eligibility depends on the statute of conviction and its modified penalties, even when the court previously found that the defendant’s conduct involved a larger quantity of crack cocaine.

United States v. Allen · filed 2019-04-26(a)

Construing section 404 to extend eligibility for a sentence reduction to persons whose offense conduct involved 280 grams or more vests courts with discretion to reduce a sentence or decline to do so.

Section 404(a) bases eligibility on whether the Fair Sentencing Act modified the penalties for the statute of conviction, regardless of the defendant’s actual drug quantity.

United States v. White · filed 2019-08-06(a)

Instead, Section 404(a) focuses only on whether FSA’s section 2 or 3 modified the statute of conviction and penalty.

Section 404(a) bases eligibility for a reduced sentence on the statute of conviction and its amended penalties, rather than the defendant's actual conduct.

United States v. Rose · filed 2019-05-24(a)

Instead, it inserted two otherwise unnecessary references to federal statutes, making clear that eligibility is determined by the statute(s) underlying the defendant's conviction and penalty, not the defendant's offense conduct.

Section 404 eligibility turns on the drug quantity charged in the indictment rather than the quantity attributed to the defendant as relevant conduct.

United States v. Laurey · filed 2020-01-28

We recently held, however, that it is the drug quantity charged in the indictment that controls whether the defendant is eligible for relief under the Act. ... Based on our review of the record in light of Wirsing, we conclude that Laurey is, in fact, eligible for a sentence reduction under the Act.

Section 404(a) treats a conspiracy involving both crack and powder cocaine as a covered offense when the Fair Sentencing Act modified the penalties for its crack cocaine object.

United States v. Gravatt · filed 2020-03-23(a)

Accordingly, we must decide whether Gravatt was convicted of a “covered offense” where he was charged conjunctively with conspiring to distribute both powder cocaine and crack cocaine. We believe that he has.

Section 404(a) determines eligibility for a sentence reduction by the offense of conviction, rather than the drug quantity attributed to the defendant at sentencing.

United States v. Howard · filed 2020-06-16(a)

McDonald held that the First Step Act “applies to offenses, not conduct,” so it is the defendant’s statute of conviction that determines his eligibility for relief. ... Based on his offense of conviction, Howard was thus eligible for First Step Act relief–indeed, a new mandatory minimum applied–because his was a “covered offense” under section 404(a).

Section 404(a) covers a crack-cocaine offense when the Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalty for that offense, even if the court found a larger drug quantity for sentencing purposes.

United States v. Allen · filed 2020-06-16(a)

The larger quantity of crack cocaine that the district court found—“between 420 and 784 grams of crack cocaine per week”—did not trigger the statutory penalty for Allen’s offense. Because the Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalties for Allen’s offense, he has a “covered offense.”

Section 404 eligibility turns on the offense of conviction rather than the drug quantity attributed at sentencing; a sentence reduction remains discretionary.

United States v. Birdine · filed 2020-06-22(a)

Applying McDonald, Birdine’s conviction meets the three prerequisites of a covered offense, and Birdine is eligible for relief under the First Step Act.

Section 404(a) limits covered offenses to those committed before August 3, 2010.

United States v. Stephin White · filed 2020-07-24(a)

Because he did not commit this offense before August 3, 2010, it was not a “covered offense” within § 404(a)’s definition.

A pre-2010 crack-cocaine offense is a covered offense under § 404 when the Fair Sentencing Act modified its statutory penalties.

United States v. Wright · filed 2020-08-13(a)

However, the same offenses would not lead to the same statutory range because the Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalties for his offenses by raising the amount triggering those statutory penalties to 280 grams. ... Thus, because that Act modified his statutory penalties, Wright’s offenses qualified as covered offenses.

Section 404(b) permits a court to reduce a sentence for a pre-2010 crack cocaine offense whose statutory penalties were changed by the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Bolden · filed 2020-08-21(b)

Applying Jones to this case, we hold that the district court erred in concluding that Bolden was not sentenced for a “covered offense” under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act.

Section 404(a) covers a pre-August 3, 2010 crack offense that triggered statutory penalties later modified by the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Brewer · filed 2020-08-27(a)

Because Brewer’s offense was committed before 3 August 2010, his offense constitutes a “covered offense” within the meaning of the First Step Act. So, Brewer is eligible for a reduced sentence.

Section 404(b) makes eligibility for a sentence reduction turn on the offense of conviction, rather than the drug quantity attributed to the defendant.

United States v. Bobby Banks · filed 2020-05-28(b)

Because the statute of conviction in Banks’s case required only proof that he conspired to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, and the Fair Sentencing Act reduced the penalties for a 50-gram conspiracy, he is eligible for a reduction.

Section 404(b) makes eligibility for a reduced sentence depend on the offense of conviction and whether the Fair Sentencing Act reduced its penalties, rather than the drug quantity attributed to the defendant.

United States v. Goolsby · filed 2020-05-29(b)

This contention is foreclosed by United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2019), which held that the First Step Act “applies to offenses, not conduct,” so it is the defendant’s statute of conviction that determines his eligibility for relief. Id. at 772. Because the statutes of conviction in Goolsby’s case required only proof that he distributed or conspired to distribute 50 grams of cocaine base, and the Fair Sentencing Act reduced the penalties for a 50-gram offense, he is eligible for a reduction.

Section 404 eligibility cannot be denied based on the drug quantity attributed at sentencing, and a court cannot summarily deny an eligible motion solely because the advisory Guidelines range is unchanged without considering the § 3553(a) factors.

United States v. Richardson · filed 2020-06-02

In denying Richardson’s motion for a reduced sentence under the First Step Act, it is not clear from the record whether the district court reasoned that he was not sentenced for a “covered offense” within the meaning of the Act, based on the quantity of drugs for which he was held accountable at sentencing, and therefore was not eligible for a reduction; or whether the court accepted that Richardson was eligible for a reduction but summarily denied it, without considering the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, on the grounds that his advisory Guidelines range would remain unchanged. Either resolution, however, would amount to error, in light of our reasoning in United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175, 185–86, No. 19-6381, 2019 WL 6139017 (4th Cir. Nov. 20, 2019), and United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667, 674, No. 19-7104, 2020 WL 1949249 (4th Cir. Apr. 23, 2020), respectively.

Section 404 permits a district court to reduce a sentence for a covered offense in its discretion.

United States v. Oscar Lee Brown, Jr. · filed 2020-06-19

Because Brown was sentenced for a covered offense, the district court had the authority to modify his sentence in the exercise of its discretion. By concluding that Brown was ineligible for relief, the district court erred.

Section 404 eligibility depends on whether the Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalties for the offense; a changed sentencing guidelines range is unnecessary.

United States v. Flowers · filed 2020-06-23(a)

Under the plain language of this statute, Flowers is eligible for relief, and the sentencing guidelines are irrelevant to that threshold determination.

Section 404(a) makes resentencing eligibility turn on the statute of conviction, rather than the defendant’s specific conduct.

United States v. Boulding · filed 2020-06-01(a)

To the extent it remains an open question in this circuit, we hold that eligibility for resentencing under the First Step Act turns on the statute of conviction alone.

Section 404 makes certain Fair Sentencing Act changes retroactive but provides no further relief based on those changes to a defendant who received their benefit when sentenced.

Bell v. United States · filed 2020-06-30

In 2018, Section 404 of the First Step Act made certain provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive. ... But because Petitioner was sentenced on June 4, 2019, he received the benefit of the new mandatory minimum provisions of Section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act.

Section 404(a) makes a defendant convicted of a covered offense eligible for consideration of a sentence reduction, even if the admitted drug quantity would still trigger the same statutory penalties.

United States v. Braye · filed 2020-09-30(a)

Based on Jones, the government now concedes that Braye’s Count 1 drug offense constitutes a “covered offense” under section 404(a) of the First Step Act and, thus, that Braye is eligible for a reduced sentence. We agree that -- under Jones -- the district court erred in concluding that Braye was ineligible for relief under the First Step Act.

Section 404 eligibility turns on the drug quantity tied to the offense’s statutory penalty, not a higher quantity found for sentencing purposes.

United States v. Wilson · filed 2020-10-14(a)

Because the amount related to Wilson’s statutory penalty was 5 grams or more of cocaine base, which was modified by the Fair Sentencing Act, and not the 29.7 grams of cocaine base used for sentencing purposes, Wilson was eligible for First Step Act relief.

Section 404 eligibility turns on the statute of conviction, even when the jury found a drug quantity above the Fair Sentencing Act’s new threshold.

United States v. Bagby · filed 2020-11-24(a)

In light of the government’s concession, we reverse the district court’s ruling concluding Mr. Bagby is ineligible for First Step Act relief and remand for the district court to decide whether to grant or deny Mr. Bagby’s request for a sentence reduction.

Section 404(a) covers pre-August 3, 2010 crack cocaine offenses that triggered statutory penalties later changed by the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Gaulden · filed 2020-12-23(a)

Defendants’ offenses (committed before 3 August 2010) thus qualify as “covered offenses” under the First Step Act. Having satisfied the “covered offense” requirement -- and because a lower statutory penalty would be available to them under the Fair Sentencing Act -- Terrell and Derrell are each eligible for a reduced sentence.

Section 404(a) bases eligibility for a sentence reduction on the statute of conviction rather than the defendant’s conduct.

United States v. Williams · filed 2021-01-04(a)

After our recent rulings clarifying that we base eligibility determinations on the statute of conviction, rather than the defendant’s conduct, the government conceded Williams’s § 404 eligibility. ... Accordingly, we conclude that Williams is eligible for relief because his statute of conviction, 21 U.S.C. § 841, is a “covered offense” under § 404(a).

Section 404(a) makes eligibility turn on the statutory offense of conviction, not the defendant’s actual conduct; a crack offense committed before August 3, 2010, is covered if the Fair Sentencing Act modified its statutory penalty.

United States v. Morrison · filed 2021-01-12(a)

First, on the eligibility question, the district court correctly held that Morrison is eligible for relief under the Act. "[I]t is a defendant's statutory offense, not his or her 'actual' conduct, that determines whether he has been sentenced for a 'covered offense' within the meaning of Section 404(a) [of the Act], and is consequently eligible for relief under Section 404(b)." United States v. Johnson, 961 F.3d 181, 190 (2d Cir. 2020). Morrison was convicted for crack conspiracy, in violation of § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), the statutory penalty for which was later modified by § 2(a)(2) of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, § 2(a)(2); 124 Stat. 2372, 2372, and Morrison committed his crimes before August 3, 2010, thus making his conviction a "covered offense," 132 Stat. at 5222.

Section 404(a) covers a multi-object conspiracy if the Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalty for at least one object, even when the overall sentencing range did not change.

United States v. Winters · filed 2021-02-03(a)

In conclusion, the straightforward, unforced interpretation of the statutory text is that if Section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalties for at least one object of a multi-object conspiracy, “the statutory penalties” for that conspiracy offense “were modified by” the Fair Sentencing Act, and the conspiracy satisfies Section 404(a) of the First Step Act.

Section 404 treats a pre-August 3, 2010 conspiracy involving both crack and powder cocaine as a covered offense when the Fair Sentencing Act modified the crack cocaine penalties.

United States v. Smith · filed 2021-04-05

Smith’s conspiracy offense was committed before August 3, 2010, and is, therefore, a covered offense under the First Step Act.

Section 404(a) makes eligibility turn on whether the Fair Sentencing Act modified the penalties for the statute of conviction, regardless of the defendant’s actual drug quantity.

United States v. Wynn · filed 2021-04-20(a)

Because the Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalties for the statute of conviction, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), Wynn is eligible for relief under the First Step Act.

Section 404(a) covers an offense involving both crack and powder cocaine when the Fair Sentencing Act modified the penalties triggered by its crack cocaine element.

United States v. Alvin Dorsey, Jr. · filed 2021-05-11(a)

After Taylor, it is now clear that the fact that Dorsey’s conviction involved powder cocaine in addition to crack cocaine does not prevent his offense from being a “covered offense” under the First Step Act.

Section 404 makes a defendant eligible for relief when the covered offense was committed before August 3, 2010, and the sentence was not previously imposed or reduced under the Fair Sentencing Act amendments.

United States v. Cooper · filed 2021-02-11(a), (c)

Under the plain text of the statute, Cooper is eligible for First Step Act relief because his covered offense was “committed before August 3, 2010,” § 404(a), 132 Stat. at 5222, and his sentence was not “previously imposed or previously reduced in accordance with the amendments made by sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act,” § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222.

Section 404 makes eligibility depend on the statute of conviction, but permits courts to consider drug quantity when deciding whether and how much to reduce an eligible sentence.

United States v. Davis · filed 2021-04-12

We explained there that a district court should consider the statute of conviction, not the drug quantity, to determine whether a defendant is eligible for First Step Act relief. Id. at 739. ... Once past that threshold, however, the ... district court had discretion to determine whether and to what extent to reduce Davis’s sentence. See Shaw, 957 F.3d at 736.

Section 404(b) permits a sentence reduction for a covered crack cocaine offense when the defendant’s sentence exceeds the lowest statutory penalty available under the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Oral Roger Russell · filed 2021-04-15(b)

Applying the two-part framework from Jones, we likewise conclude that Russell is eligible. First, Jones makes clear that Russell’s offense—possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine—qualifies as a covered offense. See Jones, 962 F.3d at 1303. Second, the record reflects that Russell has not already been sentenced “as if” the Fair Sentencing Act had been in effect because he did not receive the lowest statutory penalty available under the Fair Sentencing Act for his offense.

Section 404(a) covers a conspiracy involving crack and powder cocaine when the Fair Sentencing Act modified the penalties for the crack-cocaine quantity, even if the powder-cocaine quantity leaves the sentencing range unchanged.

United States v. Spencer · filed 2021-05-27(a)

“Modified” in § 404(a) requires only a change in the penalties for the crack-cocaine quantity.

Section 404 does not make powder-cocaine offenses eligible for a sentence reduction because the Fair Sentencing Act did not change their penalties.

United States v. Luis Pereira, Sr. · filed 2021-06-03(b)

In any event, however, Pereira is not eligible for relief under the First Step Act because he is not serving a sentence for a covered offense. All of Pereira’s offenses were related to the importation of powder cocaine, and the First Step Act did not alter the criminal penalties for such offenses.

Section 404 does not cover a racketeering conviction when the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify the statutory penalties for that conviction, even if a racketeering act involved crack cocaine.

United States v. Kee · filed 2021-06-23(a)

Kee was not convicted under any statute modified by the Fair Sentencing Act. Nor was Kee sentenced based upon the statutory range for Section 841(b); although distribution of crack cocaine formed one of the racketeering acts, Section 1963 “independently establishes” his penalty range. Id. Accordingly, his racketeering conviction was not a covered offense.

Section 404 does not cover an offense sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify its statutory penalties.

United States v. Kimbrough · filed 2021-07-15(a)

Terry requires us to conclude that Kimbrough is not eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act because he was not sentenced for a “covered offense.”

Section 404 does not permit a sentence reduction for a defendant originally sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), because that is not a covered offense.

United States v. Jones · filed 2021-07-22

Because Jones was originally sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), he was not convicted of a “covered offense” and, hence, is ineligible for relief under the First Step Act.

Section 404 covers convictions under federal criminal statutes whose penalties were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.

United States v. Zapata · filed 2021-08-11(a)

The record and Zapata’s motion reflect that he was not convicted of an offense that was the “violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.” First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No.115-391, § 404(a), 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018); see also United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315, 319-20 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2699 (2020); Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260, 269 (2012).

Section 404 does not treat a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) as a covered offense.

United States v. Davis · filed 2021-08-24(a)

A conviction under § 841(b)(1)(C) does not constitute a covered offense under the First Step Act.

Section 404(a) does not treat a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) as a covered offense eligible for a sentence reduction.

United States v. Smith · filed 2021-09-13(a)

In Terry, the Supreme Court expressly held that a conviction for a violation of § 841(b)(1)(C) is not for a “covered offense” under the First Step Act. See Terry, 141 S. Ct. at 1862–1864. Terry has therefore foreclosed Mr. Smith’s argument.

Section 404 excludes a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) from sentence reduction because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify its statutory penalties.

United States v. Clifford Junior Walker, III · filed 2021-10-08(a)

Like the defendant in Terry, Walker is ineligible for relief under the First Step Act.

Section 404 covers a multiple-object offense with a crack-cocaine quantity element even if the sentencing court applied the powder-cocaine penalties.

United States v. Shaw · filed 2021-10-22(a)

Because Shaw was sen- tenced for a covered offense and did not receive the lowest statu- tory penalty available to him under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (“Fair Sentencing Act”), he was eligible for First Step Act relief.

Section 404(a) covers a federal offense committed before August 3, 2010, if the Fair Sentencing Act modified its statutory penalty.

United States v. Bobbie Lane Kendle · filed 2021-11-22(a)

Because Kendle’s offense was a federal offense, the statuto- ry penalties were modified by § 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act, and he committed his offense before the Fair Sentencing Act became effective on August 3, 2010, his offense is a covered one. Jones, 962 F.3d at 1298; see First Step Act § 404(a).

Section 404(a) covers an offense only if the Fair Sentencing Act modified its statutory penalties; offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) do not qualify.

United States v. Demarcis March · filed 2021-12-15(a)

As such, the penalties for March’s drug offenses were not “modified” by the Fair Sentencing Act, and those offenses are not “covered” for purposes of § 404 of the First Step Act.

Section 404 does not permit a sentence reduction for a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) because it is not a covered offense.

United States v. Craig · filed 2021-12-17

Because Craig was originally sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), he was not convicted of a “covered offense” and, hence, is ineligible for relief under the First Step Act.

Section 404 does not authorize reducing a sentence for a noncovered offense merely because it was sentenced together with a covered offense.

United States v. Contrera · filed 2022-02-02

The District Court correctly concluded that Count 47 is a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act, but that Count 8 is not.

Section 404(a) includes a conspiracy involving both crack and powder cocaine as a covered offense.

United States v. Musgrove · filed 2022-02-14(a)

Musgrove correctly contends, and the government concedes, that the district court erred in concluding that Musgrove’s conspiracy conviction was not a “covered offense” because it involved both powder and crack cocaine.

Section 404 does not cover this crack cocaine conviction because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify its statutory penalties.

United States v. Paulk · filed 2022-03-16(a)

Here, we readily conclude that Paulk’s conviction in count two for possessing with intent to distribute a detectable amount of crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of an elementary school was not a “covered offense” under the First Step Act.

Section 404 does not cover a conviction under §§ 841(b)(1)(C) and 860(a) because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify the penalties for that offense.

United States v. Dexter Griffin · filed 2022-04-01(a)

However, under our binding precedent in Williams, Griffin is ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act. Williams concluded that a conviction under §§ 841(b)(1)(C) and 860(a) was not covered.

Section 404(a) does not cover an offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify its statutory penalties.

United States v. Minnis · filed 2022-04-15(a)

Because we hold that Minnis’s offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) is not a “covered offense” and therefore renders him ineligible for a sentence reduction, we need not reach the remainder of his arguments.

Section 404(a) does not cover a continuing criminal enterprise conviction under 21 U.S.C. §§ 848(a) and (c) when the Fair Sentencing Act left that offense’s penalties unchanged.

United States v. Thomas · filed 2022-05-03(a)

Since Thomas was not convicted of an offense whose penalties were altered by the FSA, then his offense, under §§ 848(a) and (c), is not a covered offense.

Section 404(a) does not cover a continuing criminal enterprise offense under 21 U.S.C. §§ 848(a) and (c) when the Fair Sentencing Act changed penalties for predicate drug violations but left the penalties for that offense unchanged.

United States v. Thomas · filed 2022-05-13(a)

Since Thomas was not convicted of an offense whose penalties were altered by the Act, then his offense, under §§ 848(a) and (c), is not a covered offense.

Section 404 does not authorize a sentence reduction for an offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), because the Fair Sentencing Act did not change its statutory penalties.

United States v. McWaine · filed 2022-06-16

Consequently, McWaine’s drug-conspiracy offense is not a “covered offense” under the First Step Act, and he was ... ineligible for a sentencing reduction.

Section 404(a) does not cover drug-related murder under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) because the Fair Sentencing Act did not change that offense’s statutory penalties.

United States v. Tipton · filed 2022-10-18(a)

For the reasons that follow, we disagree with appellants and hold that 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) is not a covered offense under the First Step Act.

Section 404(a) does not cover drug-related murder under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify that offense’s statutory penalties.

United States v. James Roane, Jr. · filed 2022-10-18(a)

Thus, § 848(e)(1)(A) is not a “covered offense” eligible for sentence reduction under the First Step Act.

Section 404 permits a sentence reduction only when the Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalties for the offense of conviction.

United States v. Austin · filed 2021-12-17(a)–(b)

But for Austin to be eligible for a possible sentence reduction under the First Step Act, the Fair Sentencing Act must have modified the statutory penalties for his offense of conviction. ... As such, he is ineligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act.

Section 404 permits a court to deny a sentence reduction to an eligible defendant in its discretion when it adequately explains its decision.

United States v. Stewart · filed 2021-12-22

After a limited remand, the district court issued an amended order in which it found Stewart eligible for a sentence reduction under Section 404 but determined in its discretion that no reduction in Stewart’s sentence or term of supervised release was warranted. It explained that the decision was based on its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the facts of the case, the severity of the offense, and the fact that Stewart’s sentence already had been commuted to a term that fell within the statutory penalty range and the sentencing guideline range applicable under the Fair Sentencing Act. Nothing more was required.

Section 404 permits a district court to reduce the sentence for a covered crack cocaine offense, but leaves the reduction to the court’s discretion.

United States v. Fountain · filed 2022-04-28(b)

The district court erred in ruling that Fountain was ineligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. ... The district court had the authority to reduce Fountain’s sentence.

Section 404(b) authorizes a court to consider reducing a sentence for a covered offense when the Fair Sentencing Act would have changed the defendant’s statutory penalty range.

United States v. Saldana · filed 2022-09-07(b)

Because Saldana’s statutory penalty range for his covered offenses would have differed had sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act been in place, the district court had au- thority to reduce Saldana’s sentence under section 404 of the First Step Act.

Section 404 excludes offenses carrying § 841(b)(1)(C) penalties from sentence reduction because the Fair Sentencing Act did not change those penalties, even when consecutive sentences total more than 20 years.

United States v. Benjamin · filed 2023-01-30(a)

Terry simply does not leave room to argue that a crime carrying a § 841(b)(1)(C) penalty is a covered offense for purposes of the First Step Act.

Section 404(b) uses the same definition of “covered offense” as § 404(a) and requires the court to calculate the Guidelines range as if the Fair Sentencing Act applied before deciding whether to reduce a sentence.

United States v. Wynn · filed 2023-01-31(b)

The same holds true for the retroactivity clause as the definition of “covered offense” is the same for both § 404(a) and § 404(b).

Section 404(b) permits a court to reduce a sentence only for a covered offense, not for other counts.

United States v. Files · filed 2023-03-24(b)

Accordingly, we hold that Concepcion did not abrogate Denson’s holding that a sentencing court “is permitted to reduce a defendant’s sentence” under the First Step Act “only on a ‘covered offense’” and not “on counts that are not ‘covered offenses.’” 963 F.3d at 1089.

Section 404(a) makes a defendant eligible for a sentence reduction if the defendant committed a covered offense before August 3, 2010.

United States v. Deft. 3 · filed 2023-04-05(a)

Because Wells’s statute of conviction was modified by the First Step Act, and his offense occurred prior to August 3, 2010, he committed a covered offense and is thus eligible for relief under Section 404.

Section 404(a) covers an offense only if the Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalties for the defendant’s offense of conviction.

United States v. Ferris Lee · filed 2023-08-23(a)

Because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify the statutory penalties for these offenses, they are not “covered offenses” under § 404 of the First Step Act.

Section 404 does not provide sentence reduction relief for heroin offenses; it addresses the sentencing disparity between cocaine base and powder cocaine offenses.

United States v. Rivera · filed 2023-12-15

That is true because the First Step Act and the Fair Sentencing Act still only address the sentencing disparity between offenses involving cocaine base and powder cocaine, not heroin.

Section 404 does not make a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 848(a) eligible for a sentence reduction because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify that offense’s statutory penalties.

United States v. Colon · filed 2024-05-07(a)

We agree with the Fourth Circuit’s reading and straight- forward application of Terry: CCE convictions under § 848(a) are not covered offenses because the statutory penalties— twenty years to life imprisonment—were not altered by the Fair Sentencing Act.

Section 404(a) makes a defendant eligible for a sentence reduction when the offense occurred before August 3, 2010, and its statutory penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Wyche · filed 2023-01-09(a)

Because Mr. Wyche's statute of conviction was modified by the First Step Act, and his offense occurred prior to August 3, 2010, he committed a covered offense and is thus eligible for relief under Section 404.

Section 404 does not authorize a sentence reduction for a firearm offense that is not a covered offense.

United States v. Cox · filed 2024-08-05(a)

The district court correctly determined that it lacked the au- thority to reduce Cox’s sentence for the firearm offense, 18 U.S.C. ... §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e), because it was not a “covered offense” under the Act.

Section 404(b) does not make a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 848(a) eligible for a sentence reduction because it is not a covered offense.

United States v. Walker · filed 2024-08-16(b)

The district court did not clearly err in finding that Walker was sentenced under § 848(a). This offense, for purposes of a sentencing reduction, does not qualify as a “covered offense” pursuant to the First Step Act.

Section 404(a) covers a pre-2010 continuing criminal enterprise offense involving crack cocaine even when the offense also involves drugs whose penalties the Fair Sentencing Act did not change.

United States v. Standard · filed 2024-10-03(a)

Furthermore, that Count 4 involved a multi-drug conspiracy does not make it ineligible, as has been concluded by multiple appellate courts and in the cases of Mr. Nugent’s co-defendants.

Section 404(b) makes a defendant convicted of a covered crack cocaine offense eligible for a discretionary sentence reduction.

United States v. Brown · filed 2025-10-30(b)

Brown’s “crack cocaine” convictions on Counts 2 and 9 were for covered offenses because both convictions triggered penalties under § 841(b)(1)(A), which was modified by section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act.

Section 404 permits a sentence reduction for a covered offense but does not authorize reducing a non-covered offense, even when the offenses were grouped for sentencing.

United States v. Gladney · filed 2022-08-15(b)

In light of the arguments that Maytubby made in his supplemental appellate brief, we conclude that these statements by the court must be read as holding that the First Step Act prohibits a district court from reducing the sentence on a non-covered offense, even if, as was true in Maytubby’s case, the covered and non-covered offenses were grouped together under the Sentencing Guidelines and the covered offense effectively controlled the sentence for the non-covered offense.

Section 404 permits discretionary sentence reductions for covered crack cocaine offenses but does not cover powder cocaine offenses.

United States v. Majors · filed 2019-04-29

Because the First Step Act enlarges only the date of the Fair Sentencing Act's coverage but does not change the "covered offenses," crimes involving powder cocaine are not within its ambit.

Section 404 permits a sentence reduction only when section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 modified the offense of conviction.

United States v. Duggan · filed 2019-06-18

To qualify as a covered offense under the 2018 FSA, the conviction at issue had to have been modified by section 2 or 3 of the 2010 FSA. The offense for which Duggan was convicted and sentenced - possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) - was not modified by section 2 or 3 of the 2010 FSA. The district court thus lacked jurisdiction to reduce Duggan’s sentence under the 2018 FSA.

Section 404 covers an offense only if section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 modified it; offenses that did not involve crack cocaine are ineligible.

United States v. Lassiter · filed 2019-08-07(a)

To qualify as a covered offense under the 2018 FSA, the conviction at issue had to have been modified by section 2 or 3 of the 2010 FSA. The offenses for which Lassiter was convicted and sentenced were not modified by section 2 or 3 of the 2010 FSA because they did not involve crack cocaine.

Section 404(a) does not cover a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) because the Fair Sentencing Act did not change that provision’s penalties.

United States v. Martinez · filed 2019-09-19(a)

The Fair Sentencing Act had no effect on § 841(b)(1)(C) and, thus, Martinez’s crime of conviction is not a “covered offense” under the Act.

Section 404 covers offenses whose statutory penalties were modified by sections 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010; it does not apply to a sentence based on methamphetamine.

United States v. Brown · filed 2019-10-15(a)

Here, the district court correctly concluded that the FSA of 2018 did not affect Brown’s sentence, because the relevant statutory amendments that it made retroactive applied only to cocaine, which was not a factor in calculating Brown’s sentence.

Section 404 permits a sentence reduction only when the conviction was modified by Section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Holman · filed 2019-11-05

To qualify as a covered offense under the First Step Act, the conviction at issue had to have been modified by Section 2 or 3 of the FSA. ... Because the First Step Act did not alter Holman’s statutory sentencing range, we affirm the district court’s denial of relief.

Section 404(a) does not cover an offense sentenced under § 841(b)(1)(C), because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify that provision’s penalties.

United States v. Foley · filed 2020-01-09(a)

Because the district court sentenced Foley under § 841(b)(1)(C), which was not modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act, Foley is not eligible for relief.

Section 404 permits a retroactive sentence reduction for an offense only if sections 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 modified its statutory penalties.

United States v. Saldana · filed 2020-03-26(a)

Although § 404 of the First Step Act allows a court to retroactively reduce a sentence for offenses whose statutory penalties were “modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010,” Pub. L. No. 115-391 § 404(a), 132 Stat. at 5222, the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify the statutory penalties for Mr. Saldana’s offenses, see Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372.

Section 404 limits sentence reductions to cocaine base offenses; heroin and firearm offenses are not covered.

United States v. Johnson · filed 2020-04-08

Relief under Section 404 of the First Step Act is limited to sentences imposed for cocaine base offenses.

Section 404 does not provide a reduction of a life sentence under § 848(e) when the Fair Sentencing Act did not amend that offense.

United States v. Potts · filed 2019-07-26(b)

Accordingly, the Court determines that the Fair Sentencing Act did not affect defendant's sentence of life imprisonment pursuant to § 848(e). The Court denies defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence pursuant to the First Step Act.

Section 404 does not authorize a sentence reduction when the defendant’s admitted drug quantity exceeds 280 grams of crack cocaine and leaves the statutory sentencing range unchanged.

United States v. Oscar Lee Brown, Jr. · filed 2020-02-18(b)

The First Step Act allows district courts to reduce ... sentences of defendants who distributed less than 280 grams of cocaine. Because Brown admitted that he was responsible for distributing 1,500 grams of cocaine, he remains subject to the same mandatory minimum sentence and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The First Step Act cannot serve as a basis to reduce Brown’s sentence.

Section 404(a) covers an offense if it triggered a statutory penalty later modified by the Fair Sentencing Act; the actual drug quantity does not determine whether the offense is covered.

United States v. Jones · filed 2020-06-16(a)

So a movant has a “covered offense” if his offense triggered a statutory penalty that has since been modified by the Fair Sentencing Act.

Section 404(a) excludes convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) from covered offenses because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify their statutory penalties.

United States v. Birt · filed 2020-07-20(a)

We likewise hold that a conviction under ... § 841(a)(1) and § 841(b)(1)(C) is not a “covered offense” within the meaning of the First Step Act.

Section 404(a) covers an offense only if the Fair Sentencing Act modified its statutory penalties; eliminating the offense does not qualify.

United States v. Chandar Snow · filed 2020-07-29(a)

The elimination of statutory penalties cannot be called a “modification” of statutory penalties without putting great strain on the ordinary meaning of the word “modify.” This strongly suggests that Snow’s § 848(e)(1)(A) conviction cannot be considered a covered offense as defined in § 404(a) of the First Step Act.

Section 404(b) does not authorize reducing a sentence for a noncovered offense because a prior covered offense was used to enhance it.

United States v. Rivera · filed 2020-07-31(b)

Rivera is incorrect; nothing in the text of the First Step Act extends the retroactive effect of the Fair Sentencing Act to covered offenses that are used as sentencing enhancements for non-covered offenses.

Section 404(a) covers a pre-August 3, 2010 offense only if the Fair Sentencing Act modified its statutory penalties; convictions under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) do not qualify.

United States v. Beltran · filed 2020-09-04(a)

Beltran is ineligible for relief because his convictions were not for a “covered offense” under the First Step Act. His statutory penalties, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), were not modified by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.

Section 404(a) does not cover an offense punished under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), whose penalties the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify.

United States v. Dixon · filed 2020-09-17(a)

Thus, under this Court’s precedent, Dixon was not sentenced for a “covered offense” within the meaning of Section 404 of the First Step Act. For this reason, the district court correctly held that Dixon is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Section 404.

Section 404(a) excludes powder-cocaine offenses because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify their statutory penalties.

United States v. Baptiste · filed 2020-11-10(a)

Neither §§ 2 nor 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act modified statutory penalties for offenses involving powder cocaine. Therefore, Counts 1, 23, 24, and 26 do not constitute “covered offenses” under the First Step Act, and the district court properly concluded that it lacked authority to modify the sentences for those powder–cocaine counts.