← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Terry v. United States

No. 20-5904 SCOTUS · Decided SCOTUS

Argued: May 4, 2021 Decided: Jun 17, 2021

The Law · How the Case Works

Overview

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Fair Sentencing Act's reduction of crack cocaine mandatory minimums did not apply retroactively to defendants who were sentenced before the Act took effect, even if their crack-related conviction remained after a resentencing on other grounds.

The Facts

Facts

Terry was convicted of crack cocaine and other offenses. After a resentencing on the other offenses, he argued the First Step Act made him eligible for a reduced sentence on the crack charge under the Fair Sentencing Act. The question was whether his crack sentence could be reduced when he had not been 'sentenced' for the crack offense after the FSA was enacted.

The Issue

Issue

Whether the First Step Act's authorization of reduced sentences for certain crack cocaine offenses covers defendants convicted under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C), the penalty tier that specifies no drug quantity.

The Rules

Rule

The First Step Act applies only to 'covered offenses,' defined as violations of a federal statute whose penalty provisions were modified by sections 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act. The Fair Sentencing Act modified only 841(b)(1)(A) and (B), which carry quantity-triggered mandatory minimums. Section 841(b)(1)(C) was not modified; offenses sentenced under it are not covered offenses.

The Application

Analysis

Terry's crack cocaine conviction fell under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), a penalty tier that the Fair Sentencing Act never modified. The FSA only adjusted sections 841(b)(1)(A) and (B), which carry quantity-based mandatory minimums. Because the statute of conviction was not among those altered by the FSA, Terry's offense did not qualify as a "covered offense" under the First Step Act's scope, regardless of the subsequent resentencing on unrelated counts. The Court's application of the statutory definition turned entirely on the precise subsection of the statute under which Terry was sentenced at the time of conviction, making the absence of (C) from the FSA's amendments dispositive.

The Conclusion

Conclusion

Unanimous Court held resentencing on other counts does not trigger FSA eligibility for the crack offense. Terry was not eligible for reduction. Justice Barrett wrote for the Court.

The Record · 1 original document