Concepcion v. United States

Summary

Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, 132 Stat. 5222, allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence.

Text

PRELIMINARY PRINT 
Volume 597 U. S. Part 2 
Pages 481–506 
OFFICIAL REPORTS 
OF 
THE SUPREME COURT 
June 27, 2022 
REBECCA A. WOMELDORF 
reporter of decisions 
Page Proof Pending Publication
NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before 
the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter 
of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, 
[email protected], of any typographical or other formal errors.

OCTOBER TERM, 2021 481 
Syllabus 
CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for 
the rst circuit 
No. 20–1650. Argued January 19, 2022—Decided June 27, 2022 
Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to correct the wide dis-
parity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing. Section 2 of that 
Act increased the amount of crack cocaine needed to trigger a 5-to-40-
year sentencing range from 5 grams to 28 grams. § 2(a)(2), 124 Stat. 
2372. The Fair Sentencing Act did not apply retroactively, but in 2011, 
the Sentencing Commission amended the Sentencing Guidelines to 
lower the Guidelines range for crack-cocaine offenses and applied that 
reduction retroactively for some defendants. In 2018, Congress en-
acted the First Step Act, authorizing district courts to “impose a re-
duced sentence” on defendants serving sentences for certain crack-
cocaine offenses “as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act . . . 
were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.” Pub. 
L. 115–391, § 404(b), 132 Stat. 5222. 
In 2007, petitioner Carlos Concepcion pleaded guilty to one count of 
distributing fve or more grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 
U. S. C. § 841(a)(1), and he was sentenced in 2009 to 19 years (228 
months) in prison. When Concepcion was sentenced, he qualifed for 
sentencing as a “career offender.” The career offender provision and 
other enhancements increased Concepcion's Sentencing Guidelines 
range from 57 to 71 months to 262 to 327 months. Because Concepcion 
was sentenced as a career offender, he was not eligible for relief under 
the Sentencing Commission's 2011 amendment. 
In 2019, Concepcion fled a pro se motion for a sentence reduction 
under the First Step Act. He argued that he was serving a sentence 
for a “covered offense” because § 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act “modifed” 
the statutory penalties for his conviction under 21 U. S. C. § 841(a)(1). 
Concepcion contended that retroactive application of the Fair Sentenc-
ing Act lowered his Guidelines range from 262 to 327 months to 188 to 
235 months. The Government conceded Concepcion's eligibility for re-
lief but opposed the motion, emphasizing that Concepcion's original sen-
tence of 228 months fell within the new Guidelines range of 188 to 235 
months, and citing factors in Concepcion's prison record that the Gov-
ernment believed counseled against a sentence reduction. In his reply 
brief, represented by counsel, Concepcion made two primary arguments 
in support of a reduced sentence. First, he argued that he would no 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
482 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 
Syllabus 
longer be considered a career offender because one of his prior convic-
tions had been vacated and his remaining convictions would not con-
stitute crimes of violence that trigger the enhancement. Without the 
enhancement, Concepcion contended that his revised Guidelines range 
should be 57 to 71 months. Second, Concepcion pointed to postsentenc-
ing evidence of rehabilitation. 
The District Court denied Concepcion's motion. It declined to con-
sider that Concepcion would no longer qualify as a career offender based 
on its judgment that the First Step Act did not authorize such relief. 
App. to Pet. for Cert. 72a. The District Court did not address Con-
cepcion's evidence of rehabilitation or the Government's countervailing 
evidence of Concepcion's disciplinary record. The Court of Appeals af-
frmed in a divided opinion, and added to the disagreement among the 
Circuits as to whether a district court deciding a First Step Act motion 
must, may, or may not consider intervening changes of law or fact. 
Held: The First Step Act allows district courts to consider intervening 
changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence. 
Pp. 490–502. 
(a) Federal courts historically have exercised broad discretion to con-
sider all relevant information at an initial sentencing hearing, consistent 
with their responsibility to sentence the whole person before them. 
That discretion also carries forward to later proceedings that may mod-
ify an original sentence. District courts' discretion is bounded only 
when Congress or the Constitution expressly limits the type of informa-
tion a district court may consider in modifying a sentence. Pp. 490–495. 
(1) There is a “long” and “durable” tradition that sentencing judges 
“enjo[y] discretion in the sort of information they may consider” at an 
initial sentencing proceeding. Dean v. United States, 581 U. S. 62, 66. 
That unbroken tradition also characterizes federal sentencing history. 
Indeed, “[i]t has been uniform and constant in the federal judicial tradi-
tion for the sentencing judge to consider every convicted person as an 
individual and every case as a unique study in the human failings that 
sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment 
to ensue.” Koon v. United States, 518 U. S. 81, 113. Accordingly, a 
federal judge in deciding to impose a sentence “may appropriately con-
duct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind 
of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come.” 
United States v. Tucker, 404 U. S. 443, 446. Pp. 491–492. 
(2) The discretion federal judges hold at initial sentencings also 
characterizes sentencing modifcation hearings. The Court in Pepper 
v. United States, 562 U. S. 476, found it “clear that when a defendant's 
sentence has been set aside on appeal and his case remanded for resen-

Cite as: 597 U. S. 481 (2022) 483 
Syllabus 
tencing, a district court may consider evidence of a defendant's rehabili-
tation since his prior sentencing.” Id., at 490. Accordingly, federal 
courts resentencing individuals whose sentences were vacated on appeal 
regularly consider evidence of rehabilitation, or evidence of rule break-
ing in prison, developed after the initial sentencing. Where district 
courts must calculate new Guidelines ranges as part of resentencing 
proceedings, courts have also exercised their discretion to consider non-
retroactive Guidelines changes. In some cases, a district court is pro-
hibited from recalculating a Guidelines range to account for nonretroac-
tive Guidelines amendments, but the court may nevertheless fnd those 
amendments to be germane when deciding whether to modify a sentence 
at all, and if so, to what extent. Pp. 492–494. 
(3) The only limitations on a court's discretion to consider relevant 
materials at an initial sentencing or in modifying that sentence are those 
set forth by Congress in a statute or by the Constitution. See Pepper, 
562 U. S., at 489, n. 8; Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 364. 
Congress has placed such limits where it deems them appropriate. See 
18 U. S. C. §§ 3582(a), 3583(c). Congress has further imposed express 
statutory limitations on one type of sentencing modifcation proceeding, 
expressly cabining district courts' discretion by requiring courts to 
abide by the Sentencing Commission's policy statements. See also 
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) (compassionate release). Pp. 494–495. 
(b) Congress in the First Step Act did not contravene well-
established sentencing practices. Pp. 495–502. 
(1) Nothing in the text and structure of the First Step Act ex-
pressly, or even implicitly, overcomes the established tradition of district 
courts' sentencing discretion. The text of the First Step Act does not 
so much as hint that district courts are prohibited from considering 
evidence of rehabilitation, disciplinary infractions, or unrelated Guide-
lines changes. The only two limitations on district courts' discretion 
appear in § 404(c): A district court may not consider a First Step Act 
motion if the movant's sentence was already reduced under the Fair 
Sentencing Act or if the court considered and rejected a motion under 
the First Step Act. Neither limitation applies here. By its terms, 
§ 404(c) does not prohibit district courts from considering any arguments 
in favor of, or against, sentence modifcation. In fact, § 404(c) only un-
derscores that a district court is not required to modify a sentence for 
any reason. “Drawing meaning from silence is particularly inappropri-
ate” in the sentencing context, “for Congress has shown that it knows 
how to direct sentencing practices in express terms.” Kimbrough v. 
United States, 552 U. S. 85, 103. 
The “as if” clause in § 404(b) does not impose any limit on the informa-
tion a district court can consider in exercising its discretion under the 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
484 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 
Syllabus 
First Step Act. The term “as if” simply enacts the First Step Act's 
central goal: to make retroactive the changes in the Fair Sentencing 
Act, necessary to overcome 1 U. S. C. § 109, which creates a presumption 
that Congress does not repeal federal criminal penalties unless it says 
so “expressly.” The “as if” clause also directs district courts to apply 
the Fair Sentencing Act as if it applied at the time of the commission of 
the offense, not at the time of the original sentencing, suggesting that 
Congress did not intend to constrain district courts to considering only 
the original sentencing record. Thus, the “as if” clause requires dis-
trict courts to apply the legal changes in the Fair Sentencing Act when 
recalculating a movant's Guidelines, but it does not limit the information 
a district court may use to inform its decision whether and how much 
to reduce a sentence. Pp. 495–498. 
(2) Consistent with this text and structure, district courts deciding 
First Step Act motions regularly have considered evidence of postsen-
tencing rehabilitation and unrelated Guidelines amendments when 
raised by the parties. First Step Act movants have amassed prison 
records of over a decade. See § 404(a), 132 Stat. 5222 (requiring the 
movant to have been sentenced for an offense “committed before Au-
gust 3, 2010”). Those records are naturally of interest to judges author-
ized by the First Step Act to reduce prison sentences or even to release 
movants immediately. 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. 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. Nothing 
express or implicit in the First Step Act suggests that these courts 
misinterpreted the Act in considering such relevant and probative infor-
mation. Pp. 498–500. 
(3) The Court therefore holds that the First Step Act allows dis-
trict courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising 
their discretion to reduce a sentence pursuant to the First Step Act. 
When deciding a First Step Act motion, district courts bear the stand-
ard obligation to explain their decisions and demonstrate that they con-
sidered the parties' nonfrivolous arguments. See Golan v. Saada, 596 
U. S. –––, –––. The district court is not required to articulate anything 
more than a brief statement of reasons. See Rita v. United States, 551 
U. S. 338, 356. 
The broad discretion that the First Step Act affords to district courts 
also counsels in favor of deferential appellate review. See Solem v. 
Helm, 463 U. S. 277, 290, n. 16. Section 404(c) of the First Step Act 
confers particular discretion because the Act does not “require a court

Page Proof Pending Publication
Cite as: 597 U. S. 481 (2022) 485 
Syllabus 
to reduce any sentence.” Other than legal errors in recalculating the 
Guidelines to account for the Fair Sentencing Act's changes, see Gall v. 
United States, 552 U. S. 38, 51, appellate review should not be overly 
searching. Pp. 500–502. 
991 F. 3d 279, reversed and remanded. 
Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, 
Breyer, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., fled a dis-
senting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito and Barrett, JJ., 
joined, post, p. 502. 
Charles L. McCloud argued the cause for petitioner. 
With him on the briefs were Lisa S. Blatt and J. Martin 
Richey. 
Matthew Guarnieri argued the cause for the United 
States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Pre-
logar, Assistant Attorney General Polite, Deputy Solicitor 
General Feigin, and Joel S. Johnson.* 
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the District of 
Columbia et al. by Karl A. Racine, Attorney General of the District of 
Columbia, Loren L. Alikhan, Solicitor General, Caroline S. Van Zile, Prin-
cipal Deputy Solicitor General, Ashwin P . Phatak, Deputy Solicitor Gen-
eral, and Caroline W. Tan, Assistant Attorney General, by Leevin T. Ca-
macho, Attorney General of Guam, by Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney 
General of New Jersey, and by the Attorneys General for their respective 
States as follows: Philip J. Weiser of Colorado, Kwame Raoul of Illinois, 
Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, Brian E. Frosh of Maryland, Maura Healey of 
Massachusetts, Dana Nessel of Michigan, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, 
Aaron D. Ford of Nevada, Hector Balderas of New Mexico, Joshua H. 
Stein of North Carolina, Ellen F. Rosenblum of Oregon, Thomas J. Dono-
van, Jr., of Vermont, Mark R. Herring of Virginia, and Robert W. Fergu-
son of Washington; for the Americans for Prosperity Foundation by Mi-
chael Pepson; for the Constitutional Accountability Center by Elizabeth 
B. Wydra and Brianne J. Gorod; for Criminal Law Scholars by Dawinder 
S. Sidhu and Shon Hopwood; for FAMM et al. by Andrew J. Pincus, 
Charles A. Rothfeld, Eugene R. Fidell, Mary Price, David M. Porter, and 
Michael C. Holley; and for Dr. Karen Swanson et al. by Joshua C. Mc-
Daniel and James A. Sonne. 
Briefs of amici curiae urging vacatur were fled for the American Con-
servative Union Foundation by John M. Masslon II and David H. Sa-
favian; for the Drug Policy Alliance et al. by Vincent Levy and Gregory

Page Proof Pending Publication
486 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 
Opinion of the Court 
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. 
There is a longstanding tradition in American law, dating 
back to the dawn of the Republic, that a judge at sentencing 
considers the whole person before him or her “as an individ-
ual.” Koon v. United States, 518 U. S. 81, 113 (1996). In 
line with this history, federal courts today generally “exer-
cise a wide discretion in the sources and types of evidence 
used” to craft appropriate sentences. Williams v. New 
York, 337 U. S. 241, 246 (1949). When a defendant appears 
for sentencing, the sentencing court considers the defendant 
on that day, not on the date of his offense or the date of 
his conviction. Pepper v. United States, 562 U. S. 476, 492 
(2011). Similarly, when a defendant's sentence is set aside 
on appeal, the district court at resentencing can (and in many 
cases, must) consider the defendant's conduct and changes in 
the Federal Sentencing Guidelines since the original sentenc-
ing. Ibid. 
Congress enacted the First Step Act of 2018 against that 
backdrop. The First Step Act authorizes district courts to 
reduce the prison sentences of defendants convicted of cer-
tain offenses involving crack cocaine. The Act allows a dis-
trict court to impose a reduced sentence “as if” the revised 
penalties for crack cocaine enacted in the Fair Sentencing 
Act of 2010 were in effect at the time the offense was com-
mitted. The question in this case is whether a district court 
adjudicating a motion under the First Step Act may consider 
other intervening changes of law (such as changes to the Sen-
tencing Guidelines) or changes of fact (such as behavior in 
prison) in adjudicating a First Step Act motion. 
The Court holds that they may. It is only when Congress 
or the Constitution limits the scope of information that a 
district court may consider in deciding whether, and to what 
Dubinsky; for the Due Process Institute et al. by Bradley N. Garcia, Ken-
dall Turner, Shana-Tara O'Toole, David D. Cole, and Matthew R. Segal; 
and for the Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic by Tif-
fany R. Wright.

Cite as: 597 U. S. 481 (2022) 487 
Opinion of the Court 
extent, to modify a sentence, that a district court's discretion 
to consider information is restrained. Nothing in the First 
Step Act contains such a limitation. Because district courts 
are always obligated to consider nonfrivolous arguments pre-
sented by the parties, the First Step Act requires district 
courts to consider intervening changes when parties raise 
them. By its terms, however, the First Step Act does not 
compel courts to exercise their discretion to reduce any sen-
tence based on those arguments. 
The District Court in this case declined to consider peti-
tioner Carlos Concepcion's arguments that intervening 
changes of law and fact supported his motion, erroneously 
believing that it did not have the discretion to do so, and the 
Court of Appeals affrmed. The Court now reverses. 
I 
A 
In 2007, Concepcion pleaded guilty to one count of distrib-
uting fve or more grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 
U. S. C. § 841(a)(1) (2006 ed.). Concepcion admitted that he 
sold 13.8 grams of crack cocaine, and he was sentenced in 
2009 to 19 years (228 months) in prison. Two features of his 
sentencing are relevant here. First, Concepcion was sen-
tenced under a scheme that created a 100-to-1 disparity be-
tween crack-cocaine and powder-cocaine offenders. At the 
time Concepcion was sentenced, an offense involving fve or 
more grams of crack cocaine resulted in a statutory sentenc-
ing range of 5 to 40 years' imprisonment; it required 100 
times as much powder cocaine to trigger the same penalties. 
Second, when Concepcion was initially sentenced, he quali-
fed as a “career offender.” The career offender provision, 
together with other enhancements, increased Concepcion's 
Guidelines range from 57 to 71 months to 262 to 327 months. 
Both of these features of Concepcion's sentencing have 
since been altered. Just one year after Concepcion was sen-
tenced, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to 
Page Proof Pending Publication

488 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 
Opinion of the Court 
correct the harsh disparities between crack and powder 
cocaine sentencing. Section 2 of that Act increased the 
amount of crack cocaine needed to trigger the 5-to-40-year 
sentencing range from 5 grams to 28 grams. § 2(a)(2), 124 
Stat. 2372. The Sentencing Commission then retroactively 
amended the Sentencing Guidelines to lower the Guidelines 
range for crack-cocaine offenses, but that amendment did not 
beneft all prisoners serving sentences handed down during 
the 100-to-1 regime. See United States Sentencing Com-
mission, Guidelines Manual App. C, Amdt. 750 (Supp. Nov. 
2011) (USSG). Concepcion was not eligible for retroactive 
relief under that 2011 Sentencing Commission's amendment 
because he was sentenced under the career offender en-
hancement, but he became eligible to have his sentence re-
duced in 2018, when Congress passed the First Step Act. 
The First Step Act authorized district courts to “impose a 
reduced sentence” for qualifying movants “as if sections 2 
and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act . . . were in effect at the 
time the covered offense was committed.” Pub. L. 115–391, 
§ 404(b), 132 Stat. 5222. 
B 
Concepcion fled a pro se motion under the First Step Act 
in 2019. He argued that he was serving a sentence for a 
“covered offense” because § 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act 
“modifed” the statutory penalties for his conviction under 21 
U. S. C. § 841(a)(1). Concepcion contended that retroactive 
application of the Fair Sentencing Act lowered his Guidelines 
range from 262 to 327 months to 188 to 235 months. The 
Government conceded Concepcion's eligibility for relief and 
his calculation of the Guidelines but opposed the motion, em-
phasizing that Concepcion's original sentence of 228 months 
fell within the new Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months. 
While recognizing Concepcion's participation in various pro-
grams in prison, the Government detailed “troubling behav-
iors such as `[f]ighting (12/19/2017); Interfering with Staff 
(11/15/2012); and Possession of a Weapon' ” in Concepcion's 
prison records that, in the Government's view, counseled 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 597 U. S. 481 (2022) 489 
Opinion of the Court 
against a sentence reduction. Electronic Case Filing in 
No. 1:07–cr–10197 (Mass.) (ECF), Doc. 78, pp. 4–5, n. 4. 
In his reply brief, represented by counsel, Concepcion 
made two primary arguments in support of a reduced sen-
tence. First, he argued that he would no longer be consid-
ered a career offender under the amended Guidelines, be-
cause one of his prior convictions had been vacated and his 
remaining convictions would no longer be considered crimes 
of violence that trigger the enhancement.
1 Without the ca-
reer offender enhancement, Concepcion argued that his re-
vised Guidelines range should be 57 to 71 months. Second, 
Concepcion pointed to postsentencing evidence of rehabili-
tation. Concepcion highlighted his successfully completed 
drug and vocational programming, as well as his stable reen-
try plan. He also submitted a letter from a Bureau of Pris-
ons chaplain who attested to Concepcion's spiritual growth 
while incarcerated. 
The District Court denied Concepcion's motion. It 
adopted the Government's argument that if the Court “con-
sidered only the changes in law that the Fair Sentencing Act 
enacted, [Concepcion's] sentence would be the same.” App. 
to Pet. for Cert. 71a. The court declined to consider that 
Concepcion would no longer qualify as a career offender on 
the ground that the First Step Act “does not authorize such 
relief.” Id., at 72a. In doing so, the District Court adopted 
the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit, which understood the 
First Step Act to require a district court to “ `plac[e] itself in 
the time frame of the original sentencing, altering the rele-
vant legal landscape only by the changes mandated by the 
2010 Fair Sentencing Act.' ” Id., at 74a (quoting United 
States v. Hegwood, 934 F. 3d 414, 418 (CA5 2019)). The Dis-
trict Court did not address Concepcion's evidence of rehabili-
1 In 2015, this Court held that the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual 
clause was unconstitutional, see Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 591, 
prompting the Sentencing Commission to amend the identical clause of the 
career offender Guideline, see USSG App. C, Amdt. 798 (Supp. Aug. 2016). 
The Sentencing Commission did not apply the amendment retroactively. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
490 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 
Opinion of the Court 
tation or the Government's countervailing evidence of Con-
cepcion's disciplinary record. 
The Court of Appeals affrmed in a divided opinion. The 
court interpreted the First Step Act as requiring a “two-
step inquiry.” 991 F. 3d 279, 289 (CA1 2021). At the frst 
step of that inquiry, a district court decides whether a 
movant should be resentenced at all, considering only the 
changes wrought by the Fair Sentencing Act. Ibid. If the 
district court answers in the affrmative at the frst step, 
it may then, in its discretion, consider new factual or legal 
developments in determining how to resentence the movant. 
Id., at 289–290. Judge Barron dissented, rejecting the pan-
el's bifurcated approach. In his view, the First Step Act re-
quires only one step of analysis, at which district courts have 
“substantial discretion” to consider evidence of rehabilitation 
and Guidelines changes. Id., at 293, 309–310. 
The Court of Appeals opinion added to the disagree-
ment among the Circuits as to whether a district court decid-
ing a First Step Act motion must, may, or may not consider 
intervening changes of law or fact.
2 This Court granted 
certiorari to resolve this disagreement. 594 U. S. ––– 
(2021). 
II 
“From the beginning of the Republic, federal judges were 
entrusted with wide sentencing discretion.” K. Stith & J. 
2 Compare United States v. Collington, 995 F. 3d 347, 355, 360 (CA4 
2021) (must consider changed law and facts); United States v. Easter, 975 
F. 3d 318, 325–327 (CA3 2020) (same); United States v. Brown, 974 F. 3d 
1137, 1144–1145 (CA10 2020) (must consider intervening Circuit prece-
dent); United States v. White, 984 F. 3d 76, 93 (CADC 2020) (must consider 
changed facts), with United States v. Maxwell, 991 F. 3d 685, 689 (CA6 
2021) (may consider); United States v. Moore, 975 F. 3d 84, 92, n. 36 (CA2 
2020) (same); United States v. Harris, 960 F. 3d 1103, 1106 (CA8 2020) 
(same); United States v. Shaw, 957 F. 3d 734, 741–742 (CA7 2020) (same), 
with United States v. Denson, 963 F. 3d 1080, 1089 (CA11 2020) (may 
not consider); United States v. Kelley, 962 F. 3d 470, 475 (CA9 2020) 
(same); United States v. Hegwood, 934 F. 3d 414, 418–419 (CA5 2019) 
(same).

Cite as: 597 U. S. 481 (2022) 491 
Opinion of the Court 
Cabranes, Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the 
Federal Courts 9 (1998) (Stith & Cabranes). Federal courts 
historically have exercised this broad discretion to consider 
all relevant information at an initial sentencing hearing, con-
sistent with their responsibility to sentence the whole person 
before them. That discretion also carries forward to later 
proceedings that may modify an original sentence. Such 
discretion is bounded only when Congress or the Constitu-
tion expressly limits the type of information a district court 
may consider in modifying a sentence. 
A 
There is a “long” and “durable” tradition that sentencing 
judges “enjo[y] discretion in the sort of information they 
may consider” at an initial sentencing proceeding. Dean v. 
United States, 581 U. S. 62, 66 (2017).
3 This history dates 
back to before the founding: “[B]oth before and since the 
American colonies became a nation, courts in this country 
and in England practiced a policy under which a sentencing 
judge could exercise a wide discretion in the sources and 
types of evidence used to assist him in determining the kind 
and extent of punishment to be imposed within limits fxed 
by law.” Williams, 337 U. S., at 246. Early state and Eng-
lish courts broadly recognized this discretion. See, e. g., Rex 
v. Bunts, 2 T. R. 683, 100 Eng. Rep. 368 (K. B. 1788) (“[W]hen 
any defendant shall be brought up for sentence on any indict-
ment” the court shall hear evidence from the prosecution and 
the defense in determining an appropriate sentence); State 
v. Summers, 98 N. C. 702, 705, 4 S. E. 120, 121 (1887) (“It 
was competent for [the trial judge] to hear such evidence as 
he might deem necessary and proper to aid his judgment and 
discretion in determining the punishment to be imposed”); 
State v. Reeder, 79 S. C. 139, 141, 60 S. E. 434, 435 (1908) 
3 The dissent invokes another background principle: the importance of 
“fnality of criminal judgments.” Post, at 504 (opinion of Kavanaugh, 
J.). No one doubts the importance of fnality. Here, however, the Court 
interprets a statute whose very purpose is to reopen fnal judgments. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

492 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 
Opinion of the Court 
(rejecting claim that trial court erred in considering aggra-
vating evidence at sentencing, and explaining that “[t]he cir-
cuit judge merely permitted himself to be informed as to the 
character of the accused and the circumstances of the crime, 
so that he might be able to exercise his discretion intelli-
gently and pronounce a just sentence”). 
That unbroken tradition characterizes federal sentencing 
history as well. “Federal judges exercising sentencing dis-
cretion have always considered a wide variety of aggravat-
ing and mitigating factors relating to the circumstances of 
both the offense and the offender.” Stith & Cabranes 14. 
Indeed, “[i]t has been uniform and constant in the federal 
judicial tradition for the sentencing judge to consider every 
convicted person as an individual and every case as a unique 
study in the human failings that sometimes mitigate, some-
times magnify, the crime and the punishment to ensue.” 
Koon, 518 U. S., at 113; see, e. g., United States v. Randall, 
27 F. Cas. 696, 708 (No. 16,118) (DC Ore. 1869) (considering 
the defendant's “former good reputation” in imposing sen-
tence); United States v. Nye, 27 F. Cas. 210, 211 (No. 15,906) 
(CC Mass. 1855) (considering “palliating circumstance[s],” in-
cluding that the defendants were “sober, and ft for duty,” in 
imposing sentence); Lyon's Case , 15 F. Cas. 1183, 1185 
(No. 8,646) (CC Vt. 1798) (considering the “reduced condition 
of [the defendant's] estate” in imposing sentence). Accord-
ingly, a federal judge in deciding to impose a sentence “may 
appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely un-
limited either as to the kind of information he may consider, 
or the source from which it may come.” United States v. 
Tucker, 404 U. S. 443, 446 (1972). 
B 
The discretion federal judges hold at initial sentencings 
also characterizes sentencing modifcation hearings. Rely-
ing on Williams and Koon, the Court in Pepper found it 
“clear that when a defendant's sentence has been set aside 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 597 U. S. 481 (2022) 493 
Opinion of the Court 
on appeal and his case remanded for resentencing, a district 
court may consider evidence of a defendant's rehabilitation 
since his prior sentencing.” 562 U. S., at 490. Pepper 
reached that conclusion in light of the “federal sentencing 
framework” that allows sentencing judges to consider the 
“ `fullest information possible concerning the defendant's life 
and characteristics.' ” Id., at 488, 490. 
Accordingly, federal courts resentencing individuals whose 
sentences were vacated on appeal regularly consider evi-
dence of rehabilitation developed after the initial sentencing. 
See, e. g., United States v. Rodriguez, 2020 WL 2521551, *5 
(SDNY, May 18, 2020) (considering the movant's “exemplary 
conduct during a lengthy period of incarceration”); United 
States v. Raifsnider, 2020 WL 1503527, *3 (D Kan., Mar. 30, 
2020) (considering that the movant “has completed his GED, 
taken hundreds of hours of programming offered by the Bu-
reau of Prisons, and is taking college classes”). Similarly, 
district courts in resentencing proceedings frequently con-
sider evidence of violence and rule breaking in prison. See, 
e. g., United States v. Riley, 785 Fed. Appx. 282, 285 (CA6 
2019) (considering a “ `series of disciplinary violations while 
in the Bureau of Prisons' ”); United States v. Diaz, 486 Fed. 
Appx. 979, 980 (CA3 2012) (considering “infractions while in 
prison, e. g., possession of marijuana”). 
Where district courts must calculate new Guidelines 
ranges as part of resentencing proceedings, courts have also 
considered unrelated Guidelines changes in their discretion. 
See, e. g., United States v. Frates, 896 F. 3d 93, 101–102 (CA1 
2018) (distinguishing between recalculating a Guidelines 
range based on nonretroactive intervening changes of law 
and considering those changes as a matter of “discretion to 
select an appropriate sentence”); United States v. Taylor, 648 
F. 3d 417, 425 (CA6 2011) (“[T]he district court can consider 
subsequent amendments to the Guidelines for purposes of 
fashioning an appropriate sentence [at resentencing]”); 
United States v. Gilmore, 599 F. 3d 160, 166–167 (CA2 2010) 
Page Proof Pending Publication

494 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 
Opinion of the Court 
(considering subsequently updated Guidelines as “evidence 
of society's judgment of the seriousness of [the movant's] of-
fense”). In many cases, a district court is prohibited from 
recalculating a Guidelines range in light of nonretroactive 
Guidelines amendments, but the court may fnd those amend-
ments to be germane when deciding whether to modify a 
sentence at all, and if so, to what extent. 
C 
The only limitations on a court's discretion to consider any 
relevant materials at an initial sentencing or in modifying 
that sentence are those set forth by Congress in a statute or 
by the Constitution. See Pepper, 562 U. S., at 489, n. 8 (“Of 
course, sentencing courts' discretion . . . is subject to consti-
tutional constraints”); Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 
361, 364 (1989) (“[T]he scope of judicial discretion with re-
spect to a sentence is subject to congressional control”). 
Congress is not shy about placing such limits where it 
deems them appropriate. At an initial sentencing, Congress 
has provided generally that “[n]o limitation shall be placed 
on the information concerning the background, character, 
and conduct of a person convicted of an offense” when decid-
ing what sentence to impose. 18 U. S. C. § 3661. Congress 
has, however, expressly prohibited a district court in craft-
ing 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 expressly 
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, Con-
gress has expressly precluded district courts from consider-
ing the need for retribution. See § 3583(c); id., at 326. 
Congress has further imposed express statutory limita-
tions on one type of sentencing modifcation proceeding. 
Section 3582(c)(2) provides that 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 597 U. S. 481 (2022) 495 
Opinion of the Court 
“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 Com-
mission . . . the court may reduce the term of imprison-
ment, 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.” 
For those proceedings, Congress expressly cabined district 
courts' discretion by requiring courts to abide by the Sen-
tencing Commission's policy statements. See also § 3582(c) 
(1)(A) (permitting district courts to grant compassionate re-
lease in certain circumstances if “such a reduction is consist-
ent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentenc-
ing Commission”).
4 
III 
A 
Congress in the First Step Act simply did not contravene 
this well-established sentencing practice. Nothing in the 
text and structure of the First Step Act expressly, or even 
implicitly, overcomes the established tradition of district 
courts' sentencing discretion. 
The frst section of the First Step Act, § 404(a), sets out 
who is eligible for relief: 
“In this section, the term `covered offense' means a 
violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory 
penalties for which were modifed by section 2 or 3 of 
the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 . . . that was committed 
before August 3, 2010.” 132 Stat. 5222. 
4 The dissent brushes aside this venerable tradition of discretion by em-
phasizing the differences between initial sentencings and sentence modif-
cation proceedings. See post, at 503–504. Of course there are differ-
ences between the two, but the feature common to both is that only 
Congress and the Constitution limit the historic scope of district courts' 
discretion. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

496 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 
Opinion of the Court 
The second section, § 404(b), describes what relief is avail-
able for the parties who meet § 404(a)'s criteria: 
“A court that imposed a sentence for a covered offense 
may, on motion of the defendant, the Director of the Bu-
reau of Prisons, the attorney for the Government, or the 
court, impose a reduced sentence as if sections 2 and 3 
of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 . . . were in effect 
at the time the covered offense was committed.” 132 
Stat. 5222. 
The third section, § 404(c), places two explicit limitations 
on available relief: 
“No court shall entertain a motion made under this 
section to reduce a sentence if the sentence was pre-
viously imposed or previously reduced in accordance 
with the amendments made by sections 2 and 3 of the 
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 . . . or if a previous motion 
made under this section to reduce the sentence was, 
after the date of enactment of this Act, denied after a 
complete review of the motion on the merits. Nothing 
in this section shall be construed to require a court to 
reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.” 132 
Stat. 5222. 
The text of the First Step Act does not so much as hint 
that district courts are prohibited from considering evidence 
of rehabilitation, disciplinary infractions, or unrelated Guide-
lines changes. The only two limitations on district courts' 
discretion appear in § 404(c): A district court may not con-
sider a First Step Act motion if the movant's sentence was 
already reduced under the Fair Sentencing Act or if the 
court considered and rejected a motion under the First Step 
Act. Neither of those limitations applies here. By its 
terms, § 404(c) does not prohibit district courts from consid-
ering any arguments in favor of, or against, sentence modif-
cation. In fact, § 404(c) only underscores that a district 
court is not required to modify a sentence for any reason. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 597 U. S. 481 (2022) 497 
Opinion of the Court 
“Drawing meaning from silence is particularly inappropri-
ate” in the sentencing context, “for Congress has shown 
that it knows how to direct sentencing practices in express 
terms.” Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U. S. 85, 103 
(2007).
5 
Nor did Congress hide any limitations on district courts' 
discretion outside of § 404(c). Section 404(b) does not erect 
any additional such limitations. The term “as if” simply 
enacts the First Step Act's central goal: to make retroactive 
the changes in the Fair Sentencing Act. That language is 
necessary to overcome 1 U. S. C. § 109, which creates a pre-
sumption that Congress does not repeal federal criminal pen-
alties unless it says so “expressly.” To defeat the presump-
tion established by this statute, Congress needed to make 
clear that the Fair Sentencing Act applied retroactively. 
Notably, the “as if” clause requires a district court to apply 
the Fair Sentencing Act as if it applied at the time of the 
commission of the offense, not at the time of the original 
sentencing. Had Congress intended to constrain district 
courts to consider only the record as it existed at the time 
of the original sentencing, Congress would have written the 
“as if” clause to refer to that sentencing, not the commission 
of the offense. Thus, the language Congress enacted in the 
5 The dissent demands that Congress expressly specify the scope of in-
formation that a district court can consider in a sentencing modifcation 
proceeding. See post, at 504–505. This gets it backward. The consist-
ent historic norm is that a district court can consider any information in 
crafting a new or modifed sentence, subject to congressional or constitu-
tional limits. See supra, at 490–495. Moreover, the dissent's reliance on 
§ 3582(c)(1)(B), post, at 504, misses the point. Section 3582(c)(1)(B) is sim-
ply a gateway provision that refers to whichever statute “expressly per-
mit[s]” the sentencing modifcation. Ibid. It does not impose any sub-
stantive or procedural limits on a district court's discretion; for those 
details, it refers to the statute authorizing the sentence modifcation. See 
United States v. Triestman, 178 F. 3d 624, 629 (CA2 1999) (“ `[S]ubsection 
(c)(1)(B) simply notes the authority to modify a sentence if modifcation 
is permitted by statute' ” (quoting S. Rep. No. 98–225 (1984)). 
Page Proof Pending Publication

498 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 
Opinion of the Court 
First Step Act specifcally requires district courts to apply 
the legal changes in the Fair Sentencing Act when calculat-
ing the Guidelines if they chose to modify a sentence. 6 The 
“as if” clause does not, however, limit the information a dis-
trict court may use to inform its decision whether and how 
much to reduce a sentence. 
B 
Consistent with this text and structure, district courts de-
ciding First Step Act motions regularly have considered 
evidence of postsentencing rehabilitation and unrelated 
Guidelines amendments when raised by the parties. By 
defnition, First Step Act movants have amassed prison rec-
ords of over a decade. See § 404(a), 132 Stat. 5222 (requiring 
the movant to have been sentenced for an offense “com-
mitted before August 3, 2010”). Those records are naturally 
of interest to judges authorized by the First Step Act to 
reduce prison sentences or even to release movants immedi-
ately. See, e. g., United States v. Crawford, 483 F. Supp. 3d 
378, 381 (ND W. Va. 2020) (considering that the movant 
earned his GED in prison, obtained a carpentry certifcation 
through a local community college, and was sanctioned for 
only “two minor write-ups” in the nine years preceding his 
motion); United States v. Henderson, 399 F. Supp. 3d 648, 
656 (WD La. 2019) (considering that the movant “ha[d] not 
seen his children in eight years,” that he had “possible em-
ployment opportunities . . . upon his release,” and that he 
6 A district court cannot, however, recalculate a movant's benchmark 
Guidelines range in any way other than to refect the retroactive applica-
tion of the Fair Sentencing Act. Rather, the First Step Act directs dis-
trict courts to calculate the Guidelines range as if the Fair Sentencing 
Act's amendments had been in place at the time of the offense. That 
Guidelines range “anchor[s]” the sentencing proceeding. Peugh v. United 
States, 569 U. S. 530, 541 (2013). The district court may then consider 
postsentencing conduct or nonretroactive changes in selecting or rejecting 
an appropriate sentence, with the properly calculated Guidelines range as 
the benchmark. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 597 U. S. 481 (2022) 499 
Opinion of the Court 
“ha[d] received only two incident reports” while incarcer-
ated); United States v. Mitchell, 2019 WL 2647571, *8 (D DC, 
June 27, 2019) (considering that the movant “incurred no dis-
ciplinary 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) (affrming partial 
denial of motion where the district court relied on the mov-
ant'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) (consid-
ering, in denying motion, that the movant was disciplined in 
prison seven times, including “three times for possessing a 
dangerous weapon,” “once for possessing marijuana,” and 
“once for fghting”); United States v. Slutzkin, 2019 WL 
5696122, *8 (Conn., Nov. 4, 2019) (considering in denying mo-
tion the movant's “behavior once incarcerated [as] perhaps 
the greatest concern to the Court,” in light of “25 discipli-
nary citations while in state incarceration and six more in 
federal prison”).
7 
Moreover, when raised by the parties, district courts have 
considered nonretroactive Guidelines amendments to help in-
form 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 
7 In the dissent's view, each of these District Courts erred in considering 
evidence outside of the original sentencing record. See post, at 503. In-
stead, the dissent's interpretation would require a district court adjudicat-
ing 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. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

500 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 
Opinion of the Court 
movant “would not qualify for career offender status” at the 
time of his sentence modifcation hearing); United States v. 
Frederick, 2020 WL 555302, *4 (WD Pa., Feb. 4, 2020) (con-
sidering “the fact that [the movant] would not qualify as a 
career offender under the current version of the career of-
fender provisions . . . as a factor favoring the exercise of the 
discretionary relief that may be awarded”); United States v. 
Newton, 2019 WL 1007100, *5 (WD Va., Mar. 1, 2019) (consid-
ering that the movant, “if he were sentenced today,” would 
no longer qualify for career offender status). Nothing ex-
press or implicit in the First Step Act suggests that these 
courts misinterpreted the Act in considering such relevant 
and probative information.
8 
C 
The Court therefore holds that the First Step Act allows 
district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact 
in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence pursuant 
to the First Step Act. 
It follows, under the Court's sentencing jurisprudence, 
that when deciding a First Step Act motion, district courts 
8 The dissent contends that permitting a district court to consider non-
retroactive Guidelines amendments will create a disparity between First 
Step Act-eligible movants and other defendants. See post, at 505. To 
reiterate, the First Step Act does not require a district court to recalculate 
a movant's Guidelines in any respect other than applying the Fair Sentenc-
ing Act. See n. 6, supra. In any event, it is a feature of our sentencing 
law that different judges may respond differently to the same sentencing 
arguments. Cf. Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U. S. 85, 110 (2007) (per-
mitting, but not requiring, district courts to consider certain policy argu-
ments at sentencing). Moreover, disparities are always unavoidable when 
some, but not all, defendants are permitted to move for modifcations of 
an original sentence. Even the dissent's interpretation would create dis-
parities between First Step Act movants and defendants eligible for a 
sentence reduction under the 2011 retroactive crack-cocaine Guidelines, 
see supra, at 487–488, because the Commission permitted the latter group 
to argue postsentencing developments, see USSG § 1B1.10, comment, 
n. 1(B)(iii). 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 597 U. S. 481 (2022) 501 
Opinion of the Court 
bear the standard obligation to explain their decisions and 
demonstrate that they considered the parties' arguments. 
It is well established that a district court must generally 
consider the parties' nonfrivolous arguments before it. See 
Golan v. Saada, 596 U. S. –––, ––– (2022). Of course, a dis-
trict court is not required to be persuaded by every argu-
ment parties make, and it may, in its discretion, dismiss argu-
ments that it does not fnd compelling without a detailed 
explanation. Nor is a district court required to articulate 
anything more than a brief statement of reasons. See Rita 
v. United States, 551 U. S. 338, 356 (2007). Nothing in the 
First Step Act contravenes those background principles. 
When it comes to that reasoned explanation, the First Step 
Act “ `leaves much . . . to the judge's own professional judg-
ment.' ” Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U. S. –––, ––– 
(2018) (quoting Rita, 551 U. S., at 356). The First Step Act 
does not “require courts to expressly rebut each argument” 
made by the parties. United States v. Maxwell, 991 F. 3d 
685, 694 (CA6 2021). In exercising its discretion, the court 
is free to agree or disagree with any of the policy arguments 
raised before it. Cf. Kimbrough, 552 U. S., at 111. All that 
the First Step Act requires is that a district court make clear 
that it “reasoned through [the parties'] arguments.” 991 
F. 3d, at 693. 
The broad discretion that the First Step Act affords to 
district courts also counsels in favor of deferential appellate 
review. As a general matter, “it is not the role of an appel-
late court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentenc-
ing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence.” 
Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, 290, n. 16 (1983). Section 
404(c) of the First Step Act confers particular discretion, 
clarifying that the Act does not “require a court to reduce 
any sentence.” Other than legal errors in recalculating the 
Guidelines to account for the Fair Sentencing Act's changes, 
see Gall v. United States, 552 U. S. 38, 51 (2007), appellate 
review should not be overly searching. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

502 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting 
Put simply, the First Step Act does not require a district 
court to accept a movant's argument that evidence of rehabil-
itation or other changes in law counsel in favor of a sentence 
reduction, or the Government's view that evidence of violent 
behavior in prison counsels against providing relief. Nor 
does the First Step Act require a district court to make a 
point-by-point rebuttal of the parties' arguments. All that 
is required is for a district court to demonstrate that it has 
considered the arguments before it. 
* * * 
The First Step Act does not require a district court to be 
persuaded by the nonfrivolous arguments raised by the par-
ties before it, but it does require the court to consider them. 
The contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First 
Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further pro-
ceedings consistent with this opinion. 
It is so ordered. 
Justice Kavanaugh, with whom The Chief Justice, 
Justice Alito, and Justice Barrett join, dissenting. 
Beginning in the mid-1980s, Congress prescribed higher 
criminal sentences for crack-cocaine offenses than for powder-
cocaine offenses involving the same amounts of cocaine. In 
2010, Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act to narrow 
that crack/powder disparity by lowering the sentencing 
ranges for certain crack-cocaine offenses. But the Act low-
ered those crack-cocaine sentencing ranges only prospec-
tively—that is, for crack-cocaine offenders who were sen-
tenced on or after the Act's effective date of August 3, 2010. 
The First Step Act of 2018 changed that. It provided that 
the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act's lower crack-cocaine sentenc-
ing ranges would also apply retroactively to offenders who 
were sentenced before August 3, 2010. But how to imple-
ment that change? Congress did not mandate a specifc 
across-the-board reduction to all pre-August 3, 2010, crack-
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite as: 597 U. S. 481 (2022) 503 
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting 
cocaine sentences. Instead, the First Step Act authorized 
district courts, on motion, to “impose a reduced sentence as 
if ” the lower sentencing ranges for crack-cocaine offenses 
“were in effect at the time the covered offense was com-
mitted.” § 404(b), 132 Stat. 5222. 
The straightforward question in this case is whether dis-
trict courts in First Step Act sentence-modifcation proceed-
ings may reduce sentences based not only on the changes to 
the crack-cocaine sentencing ranges, but also on other unre-
lated legal or factual changes that have occurred since the 
original sentencing. For many crack-cocaine offenders who 
were sentenced before August 3, 2010, the most signifcant 
such change is a non-retroactive 2016 Sentencing Guidelines 
amendment that substantially altered the career-offender 
guideline and would signifcantly lower many of those offend-
ers' Guidelines ranges. See United States Sentencing Com-
mission, Guidelines Manual, App. C, Amdt. 798 (Nov. 2021). 
The Court today concludes that district courts in First 
Step Act sentence-modifcation proceedings may reduce sen-
tences based not only on the changes to the crack-cocaine 
sentencing ranges, but also on other unrelated legal or 
factual changes that have occurred since the original 
sentencing. 
I respectfully disagree. The text of the First Step Act 
authorizes district courts to reduce sentences based only on 
changes to the crack-cocaine sentencing ranges, not based on 
other unrelated changes that have occurred since the origi-
nal sentencing. In other words, the First Step Act directs 
district courts to answer one fundamental question: What 
would the offender's sentence have been if the lower crack-
cocaine sentencing ranges had been in effect back at the time 
of the original sentencing? 
The Court sidesteps the text of the Act and equates 
sentence-modifcation proceedings with plenary sentencing 
proceedings. But as this Court has recognized, there are 
“fundamental differences between sentencing and sentence-
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
504 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting 
modifcation proceedings.” Dillon v. United States, 560 
U. S. 817, 830 (2010). The fnality of criminal judgments is 
essential to the operation of the criminal justice system. 
See Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U. S. 538, 555–556 (1998); 
United States v. Frady, 456 U. S. 152, 166 (1982). Once a 
federal sentence becomes fnal, a court may alter that 
sentence “only in very limited circumstances.” Pepper v. 
United States, 562 U. S. 476, 501–502, n. 14 (2011). As rele-
vant here, Congress has made clear that courts may reduce 
“an imposed term of imprisonment to the extent” such a re-
duction is “expressly permitted by statute .” 18 U. S. C. 
§ 3582(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). 
The First Step Act states that the district court “may . . . 
impose a reduced sentence as if ” the lower sentencing 
ranges for crack-cocaine offenses “were in effect at the time 
the covered offense was committed.” § 404(b), 132 Stat. 
5222. By its terms, the First Step Act authorizes consider-
ation only of the lower sentencing ranges for crack-cocaine 
offenses. The First Step Act does not authorize consider-
ation of unrelated intervening legal or factual changes. In-
deed, the relevant provision of the First Step Act does not 
mention changes other than the lower sentencing ranges for 
crack-cocaine offenses. Therefore, the First Step Act does 
not “expressly permi[t]” reductions based on those unrelated 
intervening changes. 18 U. S. C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). 
In support of its conclusion that district courts in First 
Step Act sentence-modifcation proceedings may consider 
other unrelated changes, the Court cites Pepper and similar 
decisions. See ante, at 492–494. But those decisions in-
volved resentencings, not sentence-modifcation proceedings. 
See Pepper, 562 U. S., at 486–487. Those cases therefore do 
not support the Court's approach here. To reiterate, for 
sentence-modifcation proceedings, Congress has declared 
that courts may reduce a sentence only as “expressly permit-
ted by statute.” 18 U. S. C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). And the First

Cite as: 597 U. S. 481 (2022) 505 
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting 
Step Act does not authorize consideration of unrelated inter-
vening legal or factual changes since the original sentencing. 
The Court's disregard of the text of the First Step Act and 
§ 3582(c)(1)(B) will create signifcant and inexplicable sen-
tencing inequities. Consider the following. First Step Act 
sentence-modifcation proceedings are available only for of-
fenders who were sentenced before August 3, 2010. So a 
crack-cocaine offender such as Concepcion who was sen-
tenced before August 3, 2010, may now obtain the beneft 
of the non-retroactive 2016 change to the career-offender 
guideline. But a crack-cocaine offender who was sentenced 
from August 3, 2010, to July 31, 2016, will not be able to 
obtain the beneft of the non-retroactive 2016 change to 
the career-offender guideline. What sense does that make? 
That anomalous outcome will amount to a “haphazard wind-
fall” for crack-cocaine offenders sentenced before August 3, 
2010. United States v. Lancaster, 997 F. 3d 171, 180 (CA4 
2021) (Wilkinson, J., concurring in judgment). 
Still more inequities will ensue because the Court affords 
district courts blanket discretion to choose between two 
vastly different approaches to First Step Act proceedings. 
To be sure, the Court properly notes that district courts 
must begin a First Step Act proceeding by calculating the 
new Guidelines range based solely on the changes to the 
crack-cocaine sentencing ranges. See ante, at 498, n. 6. So 
far, so good. But district courts then have free rein either 
to take into account—or to completely disregard—other in-
tervening changes since the original sentencing. 
Needless to say, different district courts will choose differ-
ent approaches. The Court's decision will therefore produce 
massive inequities in how the First Step Act is implemented 
on the ground. Those inequities further illustrate why to-
day's decision is wrong as a matter of statutory interpre-
tation: Congress enacted the First Step Act to provide a 
targeted retroactive reduction in crack-cocaine sentencing 
Page Proof Pending Publication

506 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting 
ranges, not to unleash a sentencing free-for-all in the lower 
courts. 
The Court's disregard of the text of the First Step Act is 
especially audacious because the Act was a heavily negoti-
ated and vigorously debated piece of legislation. The Act 
refects a compromise among competing interests. Not for 
the frst time in a sentencing case, the Court's decision today 
unravels the legislative compromise refected in the statu-
tory text. The Court in effect green-lights district courts, 
if they wish, to make the 2016 amendment to the career-
offender guideline retroactive in First Step Act proceed-
ings—even though neither Congress nor the Sentencing 
Commission has made that amendment retroactive. Per-
haps the Court's decision represents better sentencing policy. 
Perhaps not. But under the Constitution's separation of 
powers, this Court may not simply rewrite the First Step 
Act as the Court thinks best. 
In sum, I would conclude that the First Step Act author-
izes district courts to reduce a sentence based on changes to 
the crack-cocaine sentencing ranges, but not based on other 
unrelated legal or factual changes since the original sentenc-
ing. The Court holds otherwise. Therefore, I respectfully 
dissent. 
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
Reporter’s Note 
The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication 
and citation style of the United States Reports. The revised pagination 
makes available the offcial United States Reports citation in advance of 
publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions 
for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of 
the Court. A list of counsel who argued or fled briefs in this case, and 
who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was 
argued, has been inserted following the syllabus. Other revisions may 
include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant 
punctuation. The following additional edits were made: 
p. 17, frst full paragraph, line 7, “excising” is changed to “exercising

Retrieval chunks

• #1

  PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 597 U. S. Part 2 Pages 481–506 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 27, 2022 REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions Page Proof Pending Publication NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to noti…

• #2

  Concepcion contended that retroactive application of the Fair Sentenc- ing Act lowered his Guidelines range from 262 to 327 months to 188 to 235 months. The Government conceded Concepcion's eligibility for re- lief but opposed the motion, emphasizing that Concepcion's original sen- tence of 228 months fell within …

• #3

  (1) There is a “long” and “durable” tradition that sentencing judges “enjo[y] discretion in the sort of information they may consider” at an initial sentencing proceeding. Dean v. United States, 581 U. S. 62, 66. That unbroken tradition also characterizes federal sentencing history. Indeed, “[i]t has been uniform …

• #4

  18 U. S. C. §§ 3582(a), 3583(c). Congress has further imposed express statutory limitations on one type of sentencing modifcation proceeding, expressly cabining district courts' discretion by requiring courts to abide by the Sentencing Commission's policy statements. See also § 3582(c)(1)(A) (compassionate release…

• #5

  the original sentencing record. Thus, the “as if” clause requires dis- trict courts to apply the legal changes in the Fair Sentencing Act when recalculating a movant's Guidelines, but it does not limit the information a district court may use to inform its decision whether and how much to reduce a sentence. Pp. 49…

• #6

  to reduce any sentence.” Other than legal errors in recalculating the Guidelines to account for the Fair Sentencing Act's changes, see Gall v. United States, 552 U. S. 38, 51, appellate review should not be overly searching. Pp. 500–502. 991 F. 3d 279, reversed and remanded. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion o…

• #7

  486 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES Opinion of the Court Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. There is a longstanding tradition in American law, dating back to the dawn of the Republic, that a judge at sentencing considers the whole person before him or her “as an individ- ual.” Koon v. United State…

• #8

  sented by the parties, the First Step Act requires district courts to consider intervening changes when parties raise them. By its terms, however, the First Step Act does not compel courts to exercise their discretion to reduce any sen- tence based on those arguments. The District Court in this case declined to c…

• #9

  because he was sentenced under the career offender en- hancement, but he became eligible to have his sentence re- duced in 2018, when Congress passed the First Step Act. The First Step Act authorized district courts to “impose a reduced sentence” for qualifying movants “as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentenci…

• #10

  The District Court denied Concepcion's motion. It adopted the Government's argument that if the Court “con- sidered only the changes in law that the Fair Sentencing Act enacted, [Concepcion's] sentence would be the same.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 71a. The court declined to consider that Concepcion would no longer q…

• #11

  intervening changes of law or fact. 2 This Court granted certiorari to resolve this disagreement. 594 U. S. ––– (2021). II “From the beginning of the Republic, federal judges were entrusted with wide sentencing discretion.” K. Stith & J. 2 Compare United States v. Collington, 995 F. 3d 347, 355, 360 (CA4 2021)…

• #12

  v. Bunts, 2 T. R. 683, 100 Eng. Rep. 368 (K. B. 1788) (“[W]hen any defendant shall be brought up for sentence on any indict- ment” the court shall hear evidence from the prosecution and the defense in determining an appropriate sentence); State v. Summers, 98 N. C. 702, 705, 4 S. E. 120, 121 (1887) (“It was compe…

• #13

  appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely un- limited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which it may come.” United States v. Tucker, 404 U. S. 443, 446 (1972). B The discretion federal judges hold at initial sentencings also characterizes sentencing modifcati…

• #14

  F. 3d 417, 425 (CA6 2011) (“[T]he district court can consider subsequent amendments to the Guidelines for purposes of fashioning an appropriate sentence [at resentencing]”); United States v. Gilmore, 599 F. 3d 160, 166–167 (CA2 2010) Page Proof Pending Publication 494 CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES Opinion of the C…

• #15

  term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Com- mission . . . the court may reduce the term of imprison- ment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applic…

• #16

  section to reduce a sentence if the sentence was pre- viously imposed or previously reduced in accordance with the amendments made by sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 . . . or if a previous motion made under this section to reduce the sentence was, after the date of enactment of this Act, denie…

• #17

  courts to consider only the record as it existed at the time of the original sentencing, Congress would have written the “as if” clause to refer to that sentencing, not the commission of the offense. Thus, the language Congress enacted in the 5 The dissent demands that Congress expressly specify the scope of in- …

• #18

  through a local community college, and was sanctioned for only “two minor write-ups” in the nine years preceding his motion); United States v. Henderson, 399 F. Supp. 3d 648, 656 (WD La. 2019) (considering that the movant “ha[d] not seen his children in eight years,” that he had “possible em- ployment opportuniti…

• #19

  nary citations while in state incarceration and six more in federal prison”). 7 Moreover, when raised by the parties, district courts have considered nonretroactive Guidelines amendments to help in- form whether to reduce sentences at all, and if so, by how much. See, e. g., United States v. Coachman, 2020 WL 6…

• #20

  law that different judges may respond differently to the same sentencing arguments. Cf. Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U. S. 85, 110 (2007) (per- mitting, but not requiring, district courts to consider certain policy argu- ments at sentencing). Moreover, disparities are always unavoidable when some, but not all, …

• #21

  ing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence.” Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, 290, n. 16 (1983). Section 404(c) of the First Step Act confers particular discretion, clarifying that the Act does not “require a court to reduce any sentence.” Other than legal errors in recalculating the Guidelines to …

• #22

  Cite as: 597 U. S. 481 (2022) 503 Kavanaugh, J., dissenting cocaine sentences. Instead, the First Step Act authorized district courts, on motion, to “impose a reduced sentence as if ” the lower sentencing ranges for crack-cocaine offenses “were in effect at the time the covered offense was com- mitted.” § 404(b)…

• #23

  United States v. Frady, 456 U. S. 152, 166 (1982). Once a federal sentence becomes fnal, a court may alter that sentence “only in very limited circumstances.” Pepper v. United States, 562 U. S. 476, 501–502, n. 14 (2011). As rele- vant here, Congress has made clear that courts may reduce “an imposed term of impri…

• #24

  guideline. But a crack-cocaine offender who was sentenced from August 3, 2010, to July 31, 2016, will not be able to obtain the beneft of the non-retroactive 2016 change to the career-offender guideline. What sense does that make? That anomalous outcome will amount to a “haphazard wind- fall” for crack-cocaine of…

• #25

  In sum, I would conclude that the First Step Act author- izes district courts to reduce a sentence based on changes to the crack-cocaine sentencing ranges, but not based on other unrelated legal or factual changes since the original sentenc- ing. The Court holds otherwise. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. Page…