October Term 2021
No. 20-1650

Concepcion v. United States

Petitioner Carlos Concepcion · Respondent United States of America

Reporter
597 U.S. ___ (2022)
From
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
How it got here
writ of <i>certiorari</i>

Must or may a district court consider intervening legal and factual developments when deciding whether to “impose a reduced sentence” on an individual under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018?

Question before the Court

What happened

In 2008, Carlos Concepcion pleaded guilty to crack cocaine charges, and in 2009 he was sentenced to 228 months in prison. While he was serving his sentence, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the statutory penalties for most federal crimes involving crack cocaine. In 2018, Congress made these changes retroactive, and Concepcion moved for resentencing. The district court denied his motion, and Concepcion appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the district court was not obligated to update and reevaluate the sentencing factors.

Pending
with the majority concurring in dissent recused filed an opinion

The holding

The First Step Act allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the majority opinion of the Court. District courts enjoy substantial discretion to consider all relevant information at a sentencing hearing. That discretion extends to subsequent hearings modifying sentencing, as well. The First Step Act preserves this discretion, allowing the district court to reduce sentences based not only on the changes to sentencing ranges, but also on other legal or factual changes that have occurred since the original sentencing. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Kavanaugh argued that the text of the First Step Act authorizes district courts to reduce sentences based only on changes to the crack-cocaine sentencing ranges, not on other unrelated changes that have occurred since the original sentencing.

Argued by

For the petitioner
  • Charles L. McCloud for the Petitioner
For the respondent
  • Matthew Guarnieri for the Respondent

Case path

  1. Sep 30, 2021 granted
  2. Jan 19, 2022 argued
  3. Jun 27, 2022 decided

Read the opinions