Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-5904_i4dk.pdf
Page Number: 16

6 

TERRY v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

rect role.  Especially for less serious offenders, courts some-
times entirely departed from the career offender Guidelines
and instead sentenced defendants based on the more leni-
ent drug quantity tables.2  But offenders were only eligible
for sentence reductions if retroactive amendments changed 
their Guidelines range as “determined before consideration
of any departure . . . or any variance.”  USSG §1B1.10, com-
ment.,  n. 1(A).    Hence,  even  career  offenders  whose  sen-
tences  were  based  expressly  on  the  100-to-1  ratio  in  the
drug  quantity  tables  could  not  obtain  reduced  sentences
when that ratio was retroactively lowered. 

The law’s assessment of these offenders’ culpability radi-
cally changed with the Fair Sentencing Act.  For example, 
Terry’s 3.9 grams of crack cocaine (less than the weight of 
four paperclips) led to a preenhancement base offense level 
of 20 and was just shy of the five grams that triggered a 5-
year  mandatory  minimum.  He  would  have  received  the 
same base offense level for selling 390 grams of powder co-
caine  (about  the  weight  of  a  full  can  of  soda).    After  the 
Guidelines amendments, those 3.9 grams are nowhere near 
the  28  grams  that  now  trigger  the  mandatory  minimum,
and  his  preenhancement  base  offense  level  would  be  just 
16,  the  same  as  for  selling  70  grams  of  powder  cocaine 
(about the weight of two lightbulbs).  His preenhancement 
Guidelines range dropped from 41 to 51 months to 27 to 33
months.  In short, the law now treats Terry’s offense as a 
far less serious crime. 

The  career  offender  Guidelines,  like  all  the  Guidelines, 
are merely advisory.  See United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 
220,  246  (2005).    Terry  possessed  a  very  small  amount  of 
crack cocaine, and he was a teenager when he committed
the two prior drug offenses that made him a career offender. 
—————— 

2 This practice was common enough to give rise to a split among the
Courts of Appeals over whether such offenders were eligible for sentence
reductions.    See,  e.g.,  United  States  v.  Munn,  595  F. 3d  183,  194–195 
(CA4 2010); United States v. Sharkey, 543 F. 3d 1236, 1239 (CA10 2008).