Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

2 

CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 

the crack-cocaine sentencing ranges, but also on other un-
related legal or factual changes that have occurred since the 
original sentencing.  For many crack-cocaine offenders who
were sentenced before August 3, 2010, the most significant 
such  change  is  a  non-retroactive  2016  Sentencing  Guide-
lines  amendment  that  substantially  altered  the  career-of-
fender  guideline  and  would  significantly  lower  many  of 
those offenders’ Guidelines ranges.  See United States Sen-
tencing  Commission,  Guidelines  Manual,  App.  C,  Amdt. 
798 (Nov. 2021).

The  Court  today  concludes  that  district  courts  in  First 
Step  Act  sentence-modification  proceedings  may  reduce
sentences  based  not  only  on  the  changes  to  the  crack-co-
caine sentencing ranges, but also on other unrelated legal
or factual changes that have occurred since the original sen-
tencing.

I respectfully disagree.  The text of the First Step Act au-
thorizes  district  courts  to  reduce  sentences  based  only  on 
changes to the crack-cocaine sentencing ranges, not based 
on  other  unrelated  changes  that  have  occurred  since  the 
original sentencing.  In other words, the First Step Act di-
rects  district  courts  to  answer  one  fundamental  question:
What would the offender’s sentence have been if the lower 
crack-cocaine sentencing ranges had been in effect back at 
the time of the original sentencing? 

The Court sidesteps the text of the Act and equates sen-
tence-modification  proceedings  with  plenary  sentencing
proceedings.  But  as  this  Court  has  recognized,  there  are
“fundamental  differences  between  sentencing  and  sen-
tence-modification  proceedings.”  Dillon  v.  United  States, 
560  U. S.  817,  830  (2010).    The  finality  of  criminal  judg-
ments  is  essential  to  the  operation  of  the  criminal  justice 
system.  See Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U. S. 538, 555–556 
(1998);  United  States  v.  Frady,  456  U. S.  152,  166  (1982). 
Once  a  federal  sentence  becomes  final,  a  court  may  alter 
that sentence “only in very limited circumstances.”  Pepper