Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

vant’s “exemplary conduct during a lengthy period of incar-
ceration”); United States v. Raifsnider, 2020 WL 1503527, 
*3  (D  Kan.,  Mar.  30,  2020)  (considering  that  the  movant 
“has completed his GED, taken  hundreds of hours of pro-
gramming offered by the Bureau of Prisons, and is taking 
college classes”).  Similarly, district courts in resentencing
proceedings  frequently  consider  evidence  of  violence  and 
rule  breaking  in  prison.    See,  e.g.,  United  States  v.  Riley, 
785 Fed. Appx. 282, 285 (CA6 2019) (considering a “ ‘series 
of disciplinary violations while in the Bureau of Prisons’ ”); 
United States v. Diaz, 486 Fed. Appx. 979, 980 (CA3 2012) 
(considering “infractions while in prison, e.g., possession of 
marijuana”).

Where  district  courts  must  calculate  new  Guidelines 
ranges as part of resentencing proceedings, courts have also
considered  unrelated  Guidelines  changes  in  their  discre-
tion.  See, e.g., United States v. Frates, 896 F. 3d 93, 101– 
102  (CA1  2018)  (distinguishing  between  recalculating  a 
Guidelines  range  based  on  nonretroactive  intervening 
changes of law and considering those changes as a matter 
of  “discretion  to  select  an  appropriate  sentence”);  United 
States v. Taylor, 648 F. 3d 417, 425 (CA6 2011) (“[T]he dis-
trict  court  can  consider  subsequent  amendments  to  the 
Guidelines for  purposes  of  fashioning  an  appropriate  sen-
tence  [at  resentencing]”);  United  States  v.  Gilmore,  599 
F. 3d  160,  166–167  (CA2  2010)  (considering  subsequently
updated Guidelines as “evidence of society’s judgment of the 
seriousness  of  [the  movant’s]  offense”).    In  many  cases,  a
district court is prohibited from recalculating a Guidelines 
range  in  light  of  nonretroactive  Guidelines  amendments, 
but  the  court  may  find  those  amendments  to  be  germane
when deciding whether to modify a sentence at all, and if 
so, to what extent. 

The  only  limitations  on  a  court’s  discretion  to  consider 

C