United States v. Melvin Lawrence, 1f4th40

In 2003 Lawrence was convicted of distributing 21.1 grams of crack cocaine; after remand he was resentenced in 2009 to 250 months imprisonment (career-offender treatment).
The 2010 Fair Sentencing Act reduced crack/powder sentencing disparities but applied only prospectively to sentences imposed after August 3, 2010.
The First Step Act §404 (2018) authorized district courts to reduce certain pre-2010 crack sentences by applying Fair Sentencing Act penalties retroactively.
In 2019 Lawrence moved under §404 for a reduction to time served; the government agreed only to a 10‑month reduction to meet the new statutory maximum (reducing the sentence to 240 months) and opposed further relief.
The district court granted the unopposed 10‑month reduction, denied additional reduction, and ruled that a defendant’s personal allocution at a §404 proceeding was not required.
On appeal Lawrence argued the district court should have allowed allocution; the D.C. Circuit held there is no categorical right to allocute in §404 proceedings and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants have a categorical right to allocution at a First Step Act §404 sentence‑reduction proceeding	Lawrence: common law and Rule 32 require opportunity to speak before sentence is imposed; §404 proceedings are effectively resentencings	Government: Rule 43(b)(4) excludes §3582(c) proceedings from the presence/allocution requirement; §404 is a sentence‑modification, not a new sentencing	No categorical right to allocution in §404 proceedings.
Whether Rules 32/43 or the common law mandate presence/allocution at §404 proceedings	Lawrence: Rule 32 and allocution tradition apply	Government: Rule 43 expressly exempts proceedings under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c) (which covers §404 motions) from the presence requirement	Rule 43 controls; Rule 32 allocution duty applies before initial sentencing, not to §3582(c)/§404 proceedings.
Whether denial of allocution here was reversible or requires harmless‑error analysis	Lawrence: sought allocution (no specific as‑applied prejudice argued)	Government: no categorical right and no showing allocution would have mattered	Court did not reach harmless‑error framework because no categorical right existed and Lawrence made no as‑applied claim; affirmed.

Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (Fair Sentencing Act applied prospectively to post‑Act sentences)
White v. United States, 984 F.3d 76 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (district‑court duties and remedial purpose in First Step Act §404 proceedings)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (§3582 sentence‑reduction proceedings are not full resentencings)
Abney v. United States, 957 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (discussion of allocution right)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness at sentencing)
Behrens v. United States, 375 U.S. 162 (1963) (recognition of allocution right)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (crack/powder sentencing disparity critique)
Mannie v. United States, 971 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2020) (no categorical allocution right in §3582 proceedings)
United States v. Lawrence, 662 F.3d 551 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (affirming Lawrence’s earlier sentence)