Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 9

4 

CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

in  2019.  He  argued  that  he  was  serving  a  sentence  for  a 
“covered  offense”  because  §2  of  the  Fair  Sentencing  Act 
“modified” the statutory penalties for his conviction under
21 U. S. C. §841(a)(1).  Concepcion contended that retroac-
tive  application  of  the  Fair  Sentencing  Act  lowered  his
Guidelines  range  from  262  to  327  months  to  188  to  235
months.  The Government conceded Concepcion’s eligibility 
for relief and his calculation of the Guidelines but opposed 
the  motion,  emphasizing  that  Concepcion’s  original  sen-
tence of 228 months fell within the new Guidelines range of
188 to 235 months.  While recognizing Concepcion’s partic-
ipation in various programs in prison, the Government de-
tailed “troubling behaviors such as ‘[f]ighting (12/19/2017); 
Interfering  with  Staff  (11/15/2012);  and  Possession  of  a 
Weapon’ ” in Concepcion’s prison records that, in the Gov-
ernment’s  view,  counseled  against  a  sentence  reduction. 
Electronic Case Filing in No. 1:07–cr–10197 (Mass.) (ECF), 
Doc. 78, pp. 4–5, n. 4.

In  his  reply  brief,  represented  by  counsel,  Concepcion
made two primary arguments in support of a reduced sen-
tence.  First, he argued that he would no longer be consid-
ered a career offender under the amended Guidelines, be-
cause one of his prior convictions had been vacated and his 
remaining convictions would no longer be considered crimes
of violence that trigger the enhancement.1  Without the ca-
reer offender enhancement, Concepcion argued that his re-
vised Guidelines range should be 57 to 71 months.  Second, 
Concepcion pointed to postsentencing evidence of rehabili-
tation.  Concepcion highlighted his successfully completed
drug  and  vocational  programming,  as  well  as  his  stable 

—————— 

1 In 2015, this Court held that the Armed Career Criminal Act’s resid-
ual clause was unconstitutional, see Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 
591,  prompting  the  Sentencing  Commission  to  amend  the  identical 
clause  of  the  career  offender  Guideline,  see  USSG  App.  C,  Amdt.  798 
(Supp.  Aug.  2016).    The  Sentencing  Commission  did  not  apply  the 
amendment retroactively.