Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-5904_i4dk.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

4 

TERRY v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

of this federal sentencing law.”  Id., at 153–154, 192.   Mem-
bers of Congress responded to this and similar reports.  For 
example, Senators Sessions and Hatch introduced legisla-
tion  in  2001  to  lower  the  ratio  to  20  to  1.  S. 1874,  107th 
Cong., 1st Sess.  Representative Jackson-Lee led a similar 
effort in the House, but would have created a 1-to-1 ratio. 
H. R. 4545, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007).    

Two years after petitioner was sentenced, these attempts
to change the ratio came to fruition.  In the Fair Sentencing 
Act of 2010, 124 Stat. 2372, note following 21 U. S. C. 801, 
Congress reaffirmed its view that the triggering thresholds
should be lower for crack offenses, but it reduced the 100-
to-1 ratio to about 18 to 1.  It did so by increasing the crack
quantity thresholds from 5 grams to 28 for the 5-year man-
datory minimum and from 50 grams to 280 for the 10-year 
mandatory minimum.  §2(a), 124 Stat. 2372.  These changes 
did not apply to those who had been sentenced before 2010.
The Sentencing Commission then altered the drug quan-
tity  table  used  to  calculate  Guidelines  ranges.    USSG 
§2D1.1(c).  The  Commission  decreased  the  recommended 
sentence for crack offenders to track the statutory change
Congress made.  It then made the change retroactive, giv-
ing  previous  offenders  an  opportunity  for  resentencing. 
Courts  were  still  constrained,  however,  by  the  statutory
minimums in place before 2010.  Many offenders thus re-
mained sentenced to terms above what the Guidelines rec-
ommended.  Congress addressed this issue in 2018 by en-
acting the First Step Act.  This law made the 2010 statutory
changes retroactive and gave courts authority to reduce the
sentences of certain crack offenders.   

Petitioner  initially  sought  resentencing  under  the  new,
retroactive Guidelines.  But because his sentence was based 
on  his  recidivism,  not  his  drug  quantity,  his  attempt  was 
unsuccessful.  After  Congress  enacted  the  First  Step  Act,
petitioner again sought resentencing, this time contending 
that he falls within the category of crack offenders covered