United States v. Lazelle Maxwell, 991 F.3d 685

Background

In 2008 Maxwell was convicted of a crack-cocaine and a heroin conspiracy; he was sentenced as a career offender to 30 years’ imprisonment (district court later vacated the heroin conviction but left the 30-year total intact).
At the original sentencing the statutory ranges and 2009 Guidelines produced a 30 years–life advisory range; Maxwell received a 30-year sentence.
The 2010 Fair Sentencing Act reduced crack/powder sentencing disparity but did not apply retroactively to Maxwell’s sentence at the time.
The 2018 First Step Act authorized district courts, in their discretion, to reduce sentences for covered crack offenses “as if” the Fair Sentencing Act had been in effect at the time of the offense, but it does not require a reduction.
Maxwell sought relief under the First Step Act (initial pro se letter led to procedural reversal and appointment of counsel); after counsel filed a §404(b) motion the district court recalculated eligibility using only the Fair Sentencing Act change, considered but declined to apply intervening Guideline/career-offender changes, and denied a reduction.
Maxwell appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct a plenary resentencing that would account for intervening legal developments (e.g., career-offender changes).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the First Step Act requires a plenary resentencing that reapplies all intervening changes in law when deciding a §404(b) reduction	Maxwell: district courts must recalculate the Guidelines under current law (i.e., conduct plenary resentencing), including changes to career-offender rules	Gov.: First Step Act only authorizes treating the Fair Sentencing Act changes "as if" they applied; it does not authorize relitigation of other intervening legal changes	Held: No. The Act does not mandate plenary resentencing; only the Fair Sentencing Act amendments are applied "as if" at the original sentencing for the initial Guidelines recalculation.
Whether a district court may consider intervening legal and factual developments (e.g., later career-offender precedent, post‑conviction conduct) in exercising discretion under the First Step Act	Maxwell: court should account for up‑to‑date dangerousness, recidivism risk, and career‑offender status when deciding and calibrating any reduction	Gov.: Court may consider such matters but is not required to; discretion to decline recalculation avoids creating new sentencing disparities	Held: The court may (but need not) consider intervening legal and factual developments when weighing §3553(a) factors; such consideration is discretionary.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Maxwell’s reduction given its consideration of §3553(a) factors and post‑sentencing conduct	Maxwell: district court failed adequately to weigh rehabilitation, age/health, and recidivism risk under current law	Gov.: district court considered post‑incarceration conduct, Guidelines recalculation under the First Step Act, and §3553(a) factors and reasonably declined to reduce	Held: No abuse of discretion. The district court considered Maxwell’s rehabilitation and risk, weighed them against his leadership role and long criminal history, and reasonably denied a reduction.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Blewett, 746 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2013) (Fair Sentencing Act not retroactive prior to First Step Act)
United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 2020) (Fourth Circuit held plenary resentencing required under First Step Act)
United States v. Kelley, 962 F.3d 470 (9th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act does not permit considering unrelated legal changes when applying the Act)
United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2019) (Congress did not intend other changes to be made "as if" at time of offense)
United States v. Denson, 963 F.3d 1080 (11th Cir. 2020) (district court may not reduce sentence based on law changes beyond Fair Sentencing Act)
United States v. Moore, 975 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2020) (First Step Act does not entail plenary resentencing; courts may, in their discretion, consider post‑sentencing developments when exercising discretion)
United States v. Boulding, 960 F.3d 774 (6th Cir. 2020) (discusses discretion to consider intervening legal changes in First Step Act proceedings)
United States v. Ware, 964 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2020) (district court permissibly declined reduction to avoid disparities with defendants ineligible for retroactive relief)
United States v. Foreman, 958 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act does not entitle defendant to plenary resentencing or automatic career‑offender recalculation)
United States v. Smith, 958 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2020) (district court did not err in declining to consider intervening legal developments in First Step Act ruling)