Summary
The D.C. Circuit held that under Section 404 of the First Step Act, a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction if they committed a "covered offense" (a violation whose statutory penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act, committed before August 3, 2010) and none of the limitations in Section 404(c) apply. The district court erred by imposing an additional "availability" requirement that relief was only available if the Fair Sentencing Act would have changed the defendant's specific drug-quantity-based penalty range. On remand, the district court must exercise its discretion by considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including post-sentencing conduct and mitigating evidence, in light of the remedial purpose of the First Step Act to rectify disproportionate and racially disparate crack-cocaine sentencing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a 'covered offense' under Section 404(a) of the First Step Act is determined by the statute of conviction or by the actual drug quantity attributed to the defendant.
- Whether Section 404(b) contains an additional 'availability' requirement that relief is only available if the Fair Sentencing Act would have changed the statutory penalties for the defendant's specific drug quantity.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying relief by failing to consider mitigating evidence, including post-sentencing conduct, and by relying on inaccurate factual findings.
Holdings
- A 'covered offense' is any violation of a federal criminal statute whose statutory penalties were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act, committed before August 3, 2010, regardless of the actual drug quantity attributable to the defendant.
- Section 404(b) does not create such an availability test. Relief is available for any covered offense unless the limitations in §404(c) apply.
- The district court abused its discretion by not adequately considering the mitigating evidence, including post-sentencing conduct, and by relying on a clearly erroneous factual finding regarding Hicks.
Key quotations
“A 'covered offense' under the First Step Act is 'a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act . . . , that was committed before August 3, 2010.'” (13)
“We hold that section 404(b) does not create such an availability test.” (14-15)
“The First Step Act is a remedial statute intended to correct earlier statutes’ significant disparities in the treatment of cocaine base (also known as crack cocaine) as compared to powder cocaine.” (20-21)
Factual background
Appellants Antone White and Eric Hicks participated in a drug trafficking organization from 1988 to 1993. They were convicted in 1994 of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine (Count 1), RICO conspiracy (Count 5), and various distribution counts (Counts 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 18). At sentencing, the judge found drug quantities: for White, 21.87 kg for the conspiracy, 3.607 g, 3.682 g, and 49.99 g for other counts; for Hicks, 21.87 kg for the conspiracy, 0.109 g, 0.433 g, and 5.426 g for other counts. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment. They were sentenced before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. After the First Step Act of 2018, they sought reduced sentences.
Procedural history
Appellants were convicted in 1994 of drug and conspiracy offenses. In 2019, they filed motions for reduced sentences under the First Step Act. The District Court denied White's motion and partially denied Hicks's motion. Appellants appealed.
Remand instructions
On remand, the District Court must reconsider Appellants' motions under section 404, giving due consideration to all relevant factors including the §3553(a) factors, post-sentencing conduct, and the purposes of the Fair Sentencing Act and First Step Act. The court may consider both judge-found and jury-found drug quantities in its discretion. The court must base its decision on accurate factual findings.