United States v. Jamie Stewart, 964 F.3d 433

In 2002 Jamie Stewart pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute >50g crack; sentenced as a career offender to 360 months (statutory range then 10 years–life). 2001 PSR attributed large drug quantities (14,642.8 kg marijuana equiv.).
The Fair Sentencing Act (FAIR, 2010) reduced crack thresholds and directed the Sentencing Commission to conform the Guidelines; Amendment 750 revised crack-to-marijuana equivalencies (from 20,000 to 3,571 per gram) and was made retroactive.
The First Step Act (FSA, 2018) made FAIR’s changes retroactive and authorized courts to resentenced ‘as if’ FAIR were in effect at the time of the offense (§404(b)), but it does not authorize plenary resentencing (per United States v. Hegwood).
Under Amendment 750 and post-FASTA Guidelines, Stewart’s PSR quantities convert to ~2,631.2 kg marijuana equiv., producing a base offense level ≤32; his career-offender level, reduced by FAIR’s lower statutory maximum, would be 34, yielding a Guidelines range of 262–327 months.
The district court, relying on Hegwood, applied the 2001 Guidelines (giving a base offense level 36) and denied a reduction, producing a post‑FSA range of 324–405 months; Stewart appealed.
The Fifth Circuit held the district court erred by refusing to apply Amendment 750 (the Guidelines change mandated by FAIR) when calculating Stewart’s post‑FSA range, vacated and remanded for reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court must apply the Guidelines amendment compelled by FAIR (Amendment 750) when calculating a sentence under §404(b) of the FSA	Stewart: FSA requires sentencing ‘as if’ FAIR were in effect, so courts must apply Amendment 750’s revised equivalencies; using 2001 Guidelines would defeat FSA relief	Government: District court properly followed Hegwood and used the Guidelines in effect at the time of original sentencing	Court: Vacated and remanded; district court erred—must apply Amendment 750 because it was mandated by FAIR when calculating FSA relief (but court did not decide whether all retroactive amendments must apply)

United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2019) (FSA does not permit plenary resentencing; limited ‘‘as‑if’’ adjustments)
Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (FAIR reduced crack/powder disparity and required Sentencing Commission conformity)
United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for FSA resentencing; statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
United States v. Kelly, 716 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2013) (Amendment 750 lowered base offense levels for crack to conform with FAIR)
United States v. Quintanilla, 868 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2017) (career‑offender status precludes §3582(c)(2) reductions)
United States v. Banks, 770 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2014) (same principle regarding §3582(c)(2) ineligibility)
Koons v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1783 (2018) (permitting further §3582(c)(2) motions after an intervening sentence modification)