United States v. Burris, 29 F.4th 1232

In 2004 Burris pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack; the PSR attributed 567 grams and classified him as a career offender, producing a Guidelines range of 262–327 months; the district court sentenced him to 262 months.
The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) raised the crack threshold for 10-year mandatory minimums from 50g to 280g; the First Step Act (2018) made those changes retroactive for sentence-reduction motions.
The Probation Office concluded Burris appeared eligible and computed a reduced Guidelines range of 188–235 months based on the offense-of-conviction quantity (50g).
Burris filed a First Step Act § 3582 motion seeking reduction to the low end of the new range; the government argued the PSR quantity (567g) controls so his range did not change.
The district court found Burris eligible but declined to recalculate the Guidelines range, exercised its discretion to deny relief after brief § 3553(a) analysis, and stated it would deny relief regardless of the recalculation.
The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the district court was required to calculate the revised Guidelines range before exercising discretion and that the failure to do so was not harmless error on this record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Burris)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether a district court must calculate the revised Guidelines range before exercising discretion under the First Step Act	Yes — the court must compute the corrected Guidelines range first	No — court may deny a First Step Act motion in its discretion without recalculating	Held: Court must calculate the revised Guidelines range before deciding whether to grant relief
Which drug quantity governs the recalculation: offense of conviction or PSR-attributed conduct	Use the quantity in the offense of conviction (50g)	Use the larger quantity attributed in the PSR (567g)	Held: Tenth Circuit precedent requires using the offense of conviction quantity for eligibility and Guidelines recalculation
Whether the district court's failure to calculate the revised Guidelines range was harmless error	Not harmless — denial was untethered to the correct Guidelines benchmark	Harmless — court said it would deny relief under either range	Held: Error was not harmless; government failed to show the procedural error did not affect the outcome

United States v. Brown, 974 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 2020) (district court must calculate defendant’s Guidelines range under First Step Act)
United States v. Crooks, 997 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2021) (eligibility and recalculation turn on the offense of conviction)
United States v. Broadway, 1 F.4th 1206 (10th Cir. 2021) (district court should look to the minimum drug quantity tied to the offense of conviction for recalculation)
United States v. Mannie, 971 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for First Step Act dispositions; does not excuse Guidelines calculation)
United States v. Blake, 22 F.4th 637 (7th Cir. 2022) (similar error and conclusion that failing to calculate revised Guidelines precludes harmlessness)
United States v. Warren, 22 F.4th 917 (10th Cir. 2022) (distinguished — district implicitly accepted alternative Guidelines range in that posture)
Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013) (Guidelines are the sentencing starting point and benchmark)
United States v. Gieswein, 887 F.3d 1054 (10th Cir. 2018) (explains when procedural error can be harmless if court gives a cogent explanation)
United States v. Peña-Hermosillo, 522 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2008) (district court’s assertion that the same sentence would apply under a different Guidelines calculation is generally insufficient to show harmlessness)