Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-5904_i4dk.pdf
Page Number: 17

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

7 

Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

Free  of  the  arbitrary  influence  of  the  100-to-1  ratio,  he 
would be a much stronger candidate for a downward depar-
ture. 

III 
The First Step Act of 2018 partially filled the gaps left by 
the Fair Sentencing Act.  As the Court explains, everyone
with  a  pre-August  3,  2010,  crack  conviction  under 
§841(b)(1)(A)  or  §841(b)(1)(B),  including  career  offenders, 
has a “covered offense” and is eligible for resentencing.  This 
corrects the Fair Sentencing Act’s first shortcoming, as in-
dividuals who would not be subject to the same minimums 
today can now seek resentencing without those floors. 

But, as the Court also explains, no one convicted under 
§841(b)(1)(C)  has  a  covered  offense.  The  First  Step  Act 
therefore  only  partly  addresses  the  Fair  Sentencing  Act’s 
second shortcoming.  While career offenders convicted un-
der subparagraph (A) or subparagraph (B) can now seek re-
sentencing,  that  door  remains  closed  to  career  offenders 
convicted under subparagraph (C). 

This  is  no  small  injustice.    Career  offenders  made  up 
more than half of the 2,387 defendants who obtained retro-
active sentence reductions in just the first year of the First
Step  Act’s  implementation.  USSC,  The  First  Step  Act  of
2018: One Year of Implementation 44 (Aug. 2020).  In part
because there were so many career offenders who were pre-
viously ineligible, the average sentence reduction under the
First Step Act was almost six years.  Id., at 43. 

Between 2005 and 2010, around 15 percent of offenders
who possessed less than five grams of crack were sentenced 
as career offenders.  USSC, Report to Congress: Impact of
the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, p. A–32 (Aug. 2015).  In 
courts that permitted their motions before today’s decision,
many such offenders obtained dramatically lower sentences
after the First Step Act.  See App. to Reply Brief 1a–2a (col-
lecting cases).  “Decisions like these, from courts that have