Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

no  disciplinary  infractions  over  his  last  fourteen  years  in
prison” and that the movant would no longer be considered 
a career offender based on an intervening change of law). 

Likewise, when deciding whether to grant First Step Act
motions  and  in  deciding  how  much  to  reduce  sentences, 
courts have looked to postsentencing evidence of violence or 
prison infractions as probative.  See, e.g., United States v. 
Rose, 841 Fed. Appx. 328, 329 (CA2 2021) (affirming partial 
denial of motion where the district court relied on the mo-
vant’s  “lengthy  history  of  prison  disciplinary  infractions, 
which  included  many  recent  violent  infractions”);  United 
States v. Barlow, 544 F. Supp. 3d 491, 505 (NJ 2021) (con-
sidering,  in  denying  motion,  that  the  movant  was  disci-
plined in prison seven times, including “three times for pos-
sessing  a  dangerous  weapon,”  “once 
for  possessing 
marijuana,”  and  “once  for  fighting”);  United  States  v. 
Slutzkin, 2019 WL 5696122, *8 (Conn., Nov. 4, 2019) (con-
sidering in denying motion the movant’s “behavior once in-
carcerated [as] perhaps the greatest concern to the Court,”
in light of “25 disciplinary citations while in state incarcer-
ation and six more in federal prison”).7 

Moreover, when raised by the parties, district courts have
considered nonretroactive Guidelines amendments to help 
inform whether to reduce sentences at all, and if so, by how 
much.  See,  e.g.,  United  States  v.  Coachman,  2020  WL 
6939890, *3 (ND Fla., June 22, 2020) (considering that the 
movant “would not qualify for career offender status” at the 
time of his sentence modification hearing); United States v. 

—————— 

7 In the dissent’s view, each of these District Courts erred in consider-
ing evidence outside of the original sentencing record.  See post, at 1–2. 
Instead, the dissent’s interpretation would require a district court adju-
dicating a First Step Act motion to decide whether, and by how much, to 
reduce  a  sentence  based  only  on  the  original  sentencing  record.  But 
again, the text of the First Step Act does not require that counterfactual 
procedure.