Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

2 

CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

tain offenses involving crack cocaine.  The Act allows a dis-
trict court to impose a reduced sentence “as if ” the revised
penalties for crack cocaine enacted in the Fair Sentencing
Act of 2010 were in effect at the time the offense was com-
mitted.  The question in this case is whether a district court
adjudicating  a  motion  under  the  First  Step  Act  may  con-
sider other intervening changes of law (such as changes to
the Sentencing Guidelines) or changes of fact (such as be-
havior in prison) in adjudicating a First Step Act motion. 

The Court holds that they may.  It is only when Congress 
or  the  Constitution  limits  the  scope  of  information  that  a 
district  court  may  consider  in  deciding  whether,  and  to 
what extent, to modify a sentence, that a district court’s dis-
cretion  to  consider  information  is  restrained.    Nothing  in
the First Step Act contains such a limitation.  Because dis-
trict  courts  are  always  obligated  to  consider  nonfrivolous
arguments presented by the parties, the First Step Act re-
quires district courts to consider intervening changes when 
parties raise them.  By its terms, however, the First Step
Act does not compel courts to exercise their discretion to re-
duce any sentence based on those arguments.

The District Court in this case declined to consider peti-
tioner  Carlos  Concepcion’s  arguments  that  intervening
changes of law and fact supported his motion, erroneously 
believing that it did not have the discretion to do so, and the 
Court of Appeals affirmed.  The Court now reverses. 

I 
A 
In  2007,  Concepcion  pleaded  guilty  to  one  count  of  dis-
tributing five or more grams of crack cocaine in violation of 
21 U. S. C. §841(a)(1) (2006 ed.).  Concepcion admitted that 
he sold 13.8 grams of crack cocaine, and he was sentenced 
in 2009 to 19 years (228 months) in prison.  Two features of 
his  sentencing  are  relevant  here.    First,  Concepcion  was
sentenced under a scheme that created a 100-to-1 disparity