United States v. Clifton Junius, 86 F.4th 1027

Coach and Junius led/participated in a North Philadelphia cocaine-base distribution enterprise (1992–2001) that included multiple killings.
In 2003 both pleaded guilty to drug offenses involving crack and to murder-in-furtherance-of-a-continuing-criminal-enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A).
District Court sentenced Coach to 60 years and Junius to 40 years; all counts were ordered to run concurrently.
Both filed First Step Act § 404 motions arguing § 848(e)(1)(A) convictions are "covered offenses" because they rest on § 841 predicate drug offenses affected by the Fair Sentencing Act.
District Court denied relief, holding § 848(e)(1)(A) is not a covered offense and that the sentencing-package doctrine did not apply; it alternatively denied relief under the § 3553(a) factors.
Third Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify § 848(e)(1)(A) penalties and that the sentencing-package doctrine was inapplicable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 848(e)(1)(A) murder-in-furtherance convictions are "covered offenses" under the First Step Act	Appellants: § 848(e)(1)(A) convictions are tied to § 841 predicate drug offenses that the Fair Sentencing Act modified, so they are covered	Government: The Fair Sentencing Act did not modify the statutory penalties for § 848(e)(1)(A); those penalties remain separate and unchanged	Held: Not covered — FSA did not modify § 848(e)(1)(A) penalties, so First Step Act relief unavailable
Whether the sentencing-package doctrine makes the drug-murder sentences eligible for First Step Act relief	Appellants: Sentences for drug and murder counts are interdependent and form a sentencing package, so vacatur/modification of drug penalties should affect murder sentences	Government: Sentences were imposed independently and concurrently; not an aggregate sentencing package	Held: Doctrine inapplicable — murder and drug sentences were discrete and could be treated separately

Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481 (2022) (First Step Act relief framed as ‘‘as if’’ Fair Sentencing Act penalties applied)
Terry v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1858 (2021) (interpretation of "statutory penalties" in § 404(a) focuses on whether FSA modified the penalties for the specific offense)
United States v. Snow, 967 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 2020) (FSA did not "modify" § 848(e)(1)(A); elimination of liability for some predicates differs from modifying penalties)
United States v. Fletcher, 997 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2021) (holding § 848(e)(1)(A) not a covered offense under First Step Act)
United States v. Roane, 51 F.4th 541 (4th Cir. 2022) (same conclusion on § 848(e)(1)(A))
United States v. Birt, 966 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2020) (discussing First Step Act’s retroactivity of Fair Sentencing Act changes)
United States v. Norwood, 49 F.4th 189 (3d Cir. 2022) (explaining the sentencing-package doctrine and when sentences are interdependent)