United States v. Gilliam, 997 F.3d 95

In 2006 Richard Gilliam and associates kidnapped, tortured, and killed a rival dealer; Gilliam fled and was arrested in 2008.
In February 2010 Gilliam pleaded guilty to drug-related murder under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A); he was sentenced in October 2010 to 528 months.
The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) increased crack-cocaine quantity thresholds in § 841(b) but did not apply retroactively; the First Step Act (2018) authorized limited sentence reductions for certain “covered offenses.”
In November 2019 Gilliam moved under § 404(b) of the First Step Act for a sentence reduction, arguing his § 848 conviction was premised on § 841(b)(1)(A) and thus should be treated as a covered offense.
The district court denied the motion (Mar. 18, 2020); the Second Circuit affirmed, holding § 848(e)(1)(A) is not a “covered offense” because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify § 848’s penalties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a § 848(e)(1)(A) drug-related murder conviction is a “covered offense” under the First Step Act	Gilliam: his § 848 conviction rests on a § 841(b)(1)(A) predicate that was modified by the Fair Sentencing Act, so he is eligible for § 404(b) relief	Govt: §848(e)(1)(A) is a separate substantive offense with its own penalty range that the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify	Held: §848(e)(1)(A) is not a covered offense; no § 404(b) reduction available
Whether the Fair Sentencing Act (or Dorsey) retroactively alters or invalidates § 848 convictions premised on pre-Act § 841 predicates	Gilliam: Fair Sentencing Act changes to § 841 should affect the predicate and therefore the § 848 conviction/sentence	Govt: Fair Sentencing Act did not extinguish liability under § 848; § 848’s penalties remain independent and unaffected	Held: Fair Sentencing Act did not invalidate or modify § 848 liability or penalties; conviction stands and First Step Act does not provide collateral relief

United States v. Holloway, 956 F.3d 660 (discussing standard of review for discretionary sentence reduction)
United States v. Moore, 975 F.3d 84 (de novo review where statutory interpretation underpins denial)
United States v. Davis, 961 F.3d 181 (First Step Act interpretation principles)
United States v. Martin, 974 F.3d 124 (First Step Act limits reductions to offenses altered by Fair Sentencing Act)
United States v. Guerrero, 813 F.3d 462 (§ 848(e)(1)(A) is a standalone substantive offense distinct from its § 841 predicate)
Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (Fair Sentencing Act intended more lenient penalties for post-Act sentencing)
United States v. Snow, 967 F.3d 563 (reached similar conclusion that § 848 is not a covered offense under First Step Act)