Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-5904_i4dk.pdf
Page Number: 15

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

5 

Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

were “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently 
been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.”  18 U. S. C. 
§3582(c)(2).  Offenders  whose  Guidelines  ranges  were  not 
based  on  the  drug  quantity  tables  were  ineligible,  even  if 
the 100-to-1 ratio clearly affected their actual sentence.

Take so-called “career offenders” like Terry.  A defendant 
is a career offender if he commits a felony “controlled sub-
stance offense” or “crime of violence” when he is over 18 and 
when  he  already  has  two  prior  such  felony  convictions.
USSG §4B1.1(a).  The offense level for career offenders is 
based on the statutory maximum for their crime of convic-
tion, not the drug quantity tables.  USSG §4B1.1(b).   

Terry possessed just 3.9 grams of crack.  His Guidelines 
range would normally have been about three to four years.
But Terry was sentenced as a career offender because of two 
prior drug convictions committed when he was a teenager
and for which he spent a total of only 120 days in jail.  That 
enhancement caused Terry’s Guidelines range to skyrocket 
to  about  15  to  20  years.    He  received  a  sentence  of  188 
months (at the bottom of the Guidelines range).  Because 
the  Fair  Sentencing  Act  and  the  following  Guidelines 
amendments did not change their Guidelines ranges, career 
offenders like Terry were categorically ineligible for relief, 
regardless of the severity or circumstances of their crimes. 
Career offenders were not, however, free from the harsh 
effects  of  the  100-to-1  ratio.  Prior  to  applying  the  career 
offender enhancement, district courts still calculated the of-
fender’s base offense level using the drug quantity tables. 
That preenhancement base offense level is a significant in-
dicator of an offense’s gravity, and thus of the sentence it 
merits.  A career offender with a higher base offense level 
closer  to  the  statutory  minimum  would  likely  receive  a 
harsher  punishment  than  one  with  a  lower  base  offense 
level further from the minimum. 

In some cases, the 100-to-1 ratio played an even more di-