Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 13

8 

CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

unique  study  in  the  human  failings  that  sometimes  miti-
gate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment to
ensue.”  Koon, 518 U. S., at 113; see, e.g., United States v. 
Randall,  27  F. Cas.  696,  708  (No.  16,118)  (DC  Ore.  1869) 
(considering  the  defendant’s  “former  good  reputation”  in
imposing  sentence);  United  States  v.  Nye,  27  F. Cas.  210, 
211  (No.  15,906)  (CC  Mass.  1855)  (considering  “palliating 
circumstance[s],”  including  that  the  defendants  were  “so-
ber, and fit for duty,” in imposing sentence); Lyon’s Case, 15 
F. Cas.  1183,  1185  (No.  8,646)  (CC  Vt.  1798)  (considering 
the “reduced condition of [the defendant’s] estate” in impos-
ing  sentence).  Accordingly,  a  federal  judge  in  deciding  to
impose a sentence “may appropriately conduct an inquiry 
broad  in  scope,  largely  unlimited  either  as  to  the  kind  of
information  he  may  consider,  or  the  source  from  which  it 
may  come.”  United  States  v.  Tucker,  404  U. S.  443,  446 
(1972). 

B 
The discretion federal judges hold at initial sentencings
also characterizes sentencing modification hearings.  Rely-
ing  on  Williams  and  Koon,  the  Court  in  Pepper  found  it 
“clear that when a defendant’s sentence has been set aside 
on appeal and his case remanded for resentencing, a district 
court may consider evidence of a defendant’s rehabilitation 
since  his  prior  sentencing.”    562  U. S.,  at  490.  Pepper 
reached that conclusion in light of the “federal sentencing 
framework”  that  allows  sentencing  judges  to  consider  the 
“ ‘fullest  information  possible  concerning  the  defendant’s 
life and characteristics.’ ”  Id., at 488, 490. 

Accordingly,  federal  courts  resentencing  individuals 
whose sentences were vacated on appeal regularly consider 
evidence  of  rehabilitation  developed  after  the  initial  sen-
tencing.  See,  e.g.,  United  States  v.  Rodriguez,  2020  WL 
2521551,  *5  (SDNY,  May  18,  2020)  (considering  the  mo-