Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

10 

CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

any relevant materials at an initial sentencing or in modi-
fying that sentence are those set forth by Congress in a stat-
ute or by the Constitution.  See Pepper, 562 U. S., at 489, 
n. 8 (“Of course, sentencing courts’ discretion . . . is subject
to  constitutional  constraints”);  Mistretta  v.  United  States, 
488 U. S. 361, 364 (1989) (“[T]he scope of judicial discretion 
with respect to a sentence is subject to congressional con-
trol”).

Congress  is  not  shy  about  placing  such  limits  where  it
deems  them  appropriate.  At  an  initial  sentencing,  Con-
gress has provided generally that “[n]o limitation shall be
placed on the information concerning the background, char-
acter, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense” when
deciding what sentence to impose.  18 U. S. C. §3661.  Con-
gress has, however, expressly prohibited a district court in
crafting an initial sentence from considering a defendant’s 
need for rehabilitation in support of a prison sentence.  See 
§3582(a); Tapia v. United States, 564 U. S. 319, 328 (2011). 
In  other  aspects  of  sentencing,  Congress  also  has  ex-
pressly  limited  district  courts  to  considering  only  certain 
factors.  For example, in determining whether to include a 
term of supervised release, and the length of any such term,
Congress has expressly precluded district courts from con-
sidering the need for retribution.  See §3583(c); id., at 326. 
Congress  has  further  imposed  express  statutory  limita-
tions  on  one  type  of  sentencing  modification  proceeding. 
Section 3582(c)(2) provides that 

“in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to 
a  term  of  imprisonment  based  on  a  sentencing  range 
that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing 
Commission . . . the court may reduce the term of im-
prisonment,  after  considering  the  factors  set  forth  in
section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, 
if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”