Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 21

16 

CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

Frederick, 2020 WL 555302, *4 (WD Pa., Feb. 4, 2020) (con-
sidering “the fact that [the movant] would not qualify as a
career offender under the current version of the career of-
fender provisions . . . as a factor favoring the exercise of the
discretionary relief that may be awarded”); United States v. 
Newton, 2019 WL 1007100, *5 (WD Va., Mar. 1, 2019) (con-
sidering  that  the  movant,  “if  he  were  sentenced  today,”
would no longer qualify for career offender status).  Nothing 
express or implicit in the First Step Act suggests that these
courts misinterpreted the Act in considering such relevant
and probative information.8 

C 

The Court therefore holds that the First Step Act allows 
district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact 
in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence pursuant 
to the First Step Act.

It  follows,  under  the  Court’s  sentencing  jurisprudence,
that when deciding a First Step Act motion, district courts
bear the standard obligation to explain their decisions and 
demonstrate  that  they  considered  the  parties’  arguments. 

—————— 

8 The dissent contends that permitting a district court to consider non-
retroactive Guidelines amendments will create a disparity between First
Step  Act-eligible  movants  and  other  defendants.    See  post,  at  3–4.    To 
reiterate, the First Step Act does not require a district court to recalcu-
late a movant’s Guidelines in any respect other than applying the Fair
Sentencing Act.  See n. 6, supra.  In any event, it is a feature of our sen-
tencing  law  that  different  judges  may  respond  differently  to  the  same 
sentencing arguments.  Cf. Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U. S. 85, 110 
(2007) (permitting, but not requiring, district courts to consider certain 
policy arguments at sentencing).  Moreover, disparities are always una-
voidable when some, but not all, defendants are permitted to move for 
modifications of an original sentence.  Even the dissent’s interpretation
would create disparities between First Step Act movants and defendants
eligible for a sentence reduction under the 2011 retroactive crack-cocaine
Guidelines, see supra, at 3, because the Commission permitted the latter
group  to  argue  postsentencing  developments,  see  USSG  §1B1.10,  com-
ment, n. 1(B)(iii).