United States v. Blackwell, 5:05-cr-00257

In 2007 Parks was convicted of conspiracy to distribute crack and powder cocaine; PSR attributed ~2.6 kg crack, firearm +2 level, total offense level 38, Criminal History V.
Original Guidelines range was 360 months to life; statutory mandatory minimum was 240 months.
Court sentenced Parks to 360 months in 2009; in 2015 the sentence was reduced to 292 months (bottom of the revised Guidelines range) after retroactive Amendment 782.
Parks moved under § 404 of the First Step Act (which makes parts of the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive) asking the Court to reduce his sentence to time served.
Parks argued eligibility and sought reduction based on changed sentencing practices, post‑incarceration rehabilitation, strong community support, disparity with co‑defendant who received commutation, and that time served plus supervised release is sufficient.
The Government opposed, noting the Guidelines range for Parks remains 292–365 months and the § 3553(a) factors (offense seriousness, prior convictions, firearm involvement, public safety and deterrence) weigh against a below‑Guidelines reduction. The Court denied relief.

Issue	Parks's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
1) Is Parks eligible under the First Step Act?	The offense is a "covered offense" and thus eligible for § 404 relief.	Agreed Parks is eligible.	Eligible—parties and Court agree.
2) Has the applicable Guidelines range materially changed so as to warrant reduction?	Changes in practice and data suggest many defendants now get lower sentences; Parks pointed to typical 40‑month decreases.	The Guidelines range applicable to Parks remains 292–365 months; no change to warrant reduction.	No change; Guidelines range unchanged.
3) Do § 3553(a) factors (rehabilitation, support) justify reduction to time served?	Parks cites exemplary disciplinary record, education/training, and community support as mitigating.	These factors are insufficient to outweigh offense seriousness, prior record, firearm enhancement, deterrence, and public safety.	Court exercised discretion to deny reduction—3553(a) factors do not support below‑Guidelines variance.
4) Does disparity with co‑defendant Blackwell (commuted sentence) require relief?	Clemmency for Blackwell creates unjust disparity; Parks would be released 7 years later.	Presidential clemency is distinct; co‑defendants have no right to matching sentences.	No; disparity claim rejected as insufficient to compel reduction.

United States v. Peters, 843 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2016) (discussing Fair Sentencing Act's aim to reduce crack/powder disparity)
United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2019) (describing the Fair Sentencing Act's changes to quantity thresholds)
United States v. Gravatt, 953 F.3d 258 (4th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act eligibility principles)
United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 492 (4th Cir. 2020) (district court discretion under § 404; relief not mandatory)
United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389 (4th Cir. 2019) (§ 3553(a) considerations and post‑sentencing rehabilitation relevance)
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2006) (role of Guidelines in avoiding national sentencing disparities)
United States v. Clark, [citation="774 F. App'x 783"] (4th Cir. 2019) (co‑defendants have no enforceable right to identical sentences)