Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

5 

Syllabus 

596 U. S. ___, ___.  The district court is not required to articulate any-
thing  more  than  a  brief  statement  of  reasons.    See  Rita  v.  United 
States, 551 U. S. 338, 356. 

The broad discretion that the First Step Act affords to district courts 
also  counsels  in  favor  of  deferential  appellate  review.    See  Solem  v. 
Helm, 463 U. S. 277, 290, n. 16.  Section 404(c) of the First Step Act
confers particular discretion because the Act does not “require a court 
to reduce any sentence.”  Other than legal errors in recalculating the
Guidelines to account for the Fair Sentencing Act’s changes, see Gall 
v. United States, 552 U. S. 38, 51, appellate review should not be overly 
searching.  Pp. 16–18. 

991 F. 3d 279, reversed and remanded. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, 
BREYER, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ.,  joined.  KAVANAUGH, J., filed  a  dis-
senting  opinion,  in  which  ROBERTS, C. J., and  ALITO and  BARRETT, JJ., 
joined.