Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404

Section 404 permits recalculation of a movant’s benchmark Guidelines range only to reflect retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Andrews · filed 2023-02-21(b)

The Supreme Court has explained that “[a] district court cannot . . . recalculate a movant’s benchmark Guidelines range in any way other than to reflect the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act.” Id. at 2402 n.6. The District Court did not run afoul of that principle in Andrews’s case, and we see no error in the District Court’s determination that his applicable Guidelines range remained 360 months to life.

Section 404(b) limits the Guidelines recalculation for a reduced sentence to changes that reflect the Fair Sentencing Act’s amendments.

United States v. Woods · filed 2023-03-01(b)

That the First Step Act requires district courts to account at the Guidelines-recalculation stage for one set of changes—those changes that reflect the Fair Sentencing Act’s amendments—does not require district courts to account for all other Guidelines changes, including Havis’s change to the career-offender definition.

Section 404 limits the initial Guidelines recalculation to changes in the statutory penalties for crack made by the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. McNeal · filed 2023-11-01

The statute requires the resentencing court to apply “only those changes that ‘reflect the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act,’”—namely, changes to the statutory penalties for crack—when recalculating a movant’s Guidelines range.

Section 404(b) does not authorize courts to use current law to calculate the statutory sentencing range; they apply the law from the original sentencing, with the Fair Sentencing Act’s retroactive changes.

United States v. Williams · filed 2023-02-22(b)

We therefore reiterate the conclusion from Jones that dis- trict courts do not have authority to apply current law to calculate the applicable statutory sentencing range under the First Step Act.

Section 404(b) requires a district court to consider and reason through nonfrivolous arguments about intervening, nonretroactive Guidelines changes when deciding a sentence reduction motion.

United States v. Domenech · filed 2023-03-31(b)

The district court acknowledged but did not consider and “make clear that it ‘reasoned through [the parties’] arguments’” regarding nonretroactive changes, which Concepcion expressly requires. ... Nonetheless, remand is appropriate so the district court can consider and reason through all nonfrivolous arguments raised by the brothers, consistent with Concepcion.

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

United States v. Burns · filed 2022-02-18

This court ordered a limited remand, and the district court issued an order explaining that Burns was eligible for a sentence reduction under Section 404 but that the court, in its discretion, had determined that no reduction in Burns’s sentence or term of supervised release was warranted. It stated 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 Burns’s offense, the fact that it had previously granted a “significant departure” based upon Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, and the fact that Burns’s current sentence falls within the applicable sentencing guidelines range. Nothing more was required.

Section 404 requires enough explanation to permit review when an order denying a sentence reduction leaves the grounds for the decision unclear.

United States v. Perez · filed 2022-03-10

The district court’s brief statement and reference to its consideration of “the applicable policy statements” leave the grounds for its decision unclear. We accordingly REMAND Perez’s case to the district court for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to enter reasons for denying Perez’s motion.

Section 404(b) requires a district court to explain its decision on a sentence reduction well enough to permit meaningful appellate review, including a decision about supervised release.

United States v. St. Rose · filed 2022-03-29(b)

In ruling on a request for relief under the First Step Act, a district court must provide an explanation for its decision that is adequate to allow for meaningful appellate review.

Denials of section 404 sentence-reduction motions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Johnson · filed 2022-05-23

We review the denial of a motion to reduce a sentence pursuant to the FSA for an abuse of discretion.

Section 404(c)'s complete-review requirement is met when the court considers the movant’s arguments and has a reasoned basis for its decision; it does not require consideration of the section 3553 factors.

United States v. Terrance Hood · filed 2022-06-01(c)

But “[t]he term ‘complete review’ does not mandate considering the section 3553 factors.” United States v. Moore, 963 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir. 2020). Rather, “[a] ‘complete review of the motion’ means that a district court considered [Hood’s] arguments in the motion and had a reasoned basis for its decision.” Id. (quotations omitted). The district court provided exactly that, noting that Hood was ineligible for relief because his prior sentence was “imposed” in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act.

Section 404 sentence reductions are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard.

United States v. Pope · filed 2022-06-08

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence reduction under the First Step Act for abuse of discretion.

Section 404 requires a district court deciding a sentence reduction motion to consider nonfrivolous arguments the parties raise, but not issues they leave unraised.

United States v. Seabrookes · filed 2022-08-04(b)

A district court deciding a motion under the First Step Act has an obligation to ... consider nonfrivolous arguments presented by the parties, Concepcion, 2022 WL 2295029, at *4, *12, but the same does not hold true for issues not raised.

Section 404 requires a district court deciding a sentence reduction motion to consider nonfrivolous arguments about intervening law or facts and briefly explain its decision.

United States v. Carter · filed 2022-08-17(b)

The First Step Act required the district court both to consider these nonfrivolous arguments and to prove that it had done so by providing a “brief statement of reasons.” Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404. Instead, the district court granted in part and denied in part Carter’s resentencing motion with no explanation whatsoever. We thus vacate the resentencing order below and remand.

Section 404 requires enough explanation of a denied sentence reduction motion to permit appellate review, including whether the court considered a request to reduce supervised release.

United States v. Guzman · filed 2022-12-08

Given the foregoing, we REMAND for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to explain its reasons for denying Guzman’s Section 404 motion.

Section 404(b) permits a district court to deny a sentence reduction with a brief explanation if the decision shows it considered the defendant’s arguments.

United States v. Goodwin · filed 2023-11-28(b)

This grant of discretion also gives district courts flexibility over how to convey the outcome of a motion for a reduced sentence to a defendant. See id. Although a district court must consider a defendant’s arguments, it need not respond to the arguments with an exhaustive opinion rebutting each one. Id. at 2404–05. So long as the court’s opinion allows us to conclude that it “reasoned through” a defendant’s contentions, the court may deny relief with “a brief statement of reasons” and “without a detailed explanation.” Id. at 2404 (citation omitted).

Section 404 requires a district court deciding a sentence reduction motion to explain its decision sufficiently to show that it considered the defendant’s significant new arguments.

United States v. Adam Williams, Jr. · filed 2024-02-20(b)

The circumstances of this case warranted a more detailed explanation than Judge Moody provided.

Section 404 permits a district court to deny an eligible sentence reduction after considering the defendant’s arguments and adequately explaining its decision.

United States v. Edwards · filed 2024-07-17(b)

When, as here, the district court has explicitly stated that it reviewed and considered the entire record and every argument presented, provided an explanation for its decision not to reduce the sentence, and even supported that explanation with facts from the record, it has clearly satisfied the First Step Act’s requirements.

Section 404 does not allow a reduction of a prison term the defendant has already completed.

United States v. Horace Hanzy, Jr. · filed 2020-04-29

Because Hanzy completed his federal term of imprisonment, he is ineligible for a reduction in his term of imprisonment.