Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-5904_i4dk.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

TERRY v. UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

a  sentence  reduction  only  if  the  offender  previously  received  “a  sen-
tence for a covered offense.”  §404(b), 132 Stat. 5222.  The Act defines 
“ ‘covered  offense’ ”  as  “a  violation  of  a  Federal  criminal  statute,  the 
statutory penalties for which were modified by” certain provisions in 
the Fair Sentencing Act.  §404(a), ibid.  The Fair Sentencing Act mod-
ified  the  statutory  penalties  for  offenses  that  triggered  mandatory
minimum penalties because a person charged with the same conduct 
today  no  longer  would  face  the  same  statutory  penalties  that  they
would  have  faced  before  2010.    For  example,  a  person  charged  with 
knowing or intentional possession with intent to distribute at least 50
grams of crack was subject to a 10-year mandatory minimum before 
2010.  Now, he would be subject only to a 5-year mandatory minimum. 
But the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify the statutory penalties for
petitioner’s  offense.  Before  2010,  a  person  charged  with  petitioner’s
offense—knowing  or  intentional  possession  with  intent  to  distribute 
an unspecified amount of a schedule I or II drug—was subject to stat-
utory penalties of imprisonment of 0-to-20 years and up to a $1 million
fine, or both, and a period of supervised release.  After 2010, a person 
charged with this conduct is subject to the exact same statutory pen-
alties.  Petitioner thus is not eligible for a sentence reduction.  Pp. 5– 
8. 

828 Fed. Appx. 563, affirmed. 

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and  BREYER,  ALITO,  KAGAN,  GORSUCH,  KAVANAUGH,  and  BARRETT,  JJ., 
joined.  SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring 
in the judgment.