United States v. Mitchell Swain, 49 F.4th 398

In 2008 Mitchell Swain pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute >50 grams of crack cocaine; in 2009 he was sentenced to 324 months' imprisonment.
The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) raised the crack threshold from 50g to 280g; the First Step Act (2018) made that change retroactive under §404.
Swain moved in 2019 for a §404 sentence reduction; Probation’s recalculation lowered his advisory Guidelines range substantially (Swain contended 210–262 months; the district court assumed ~210–262 months).
The district court reviewed the record and §3553(a) factors and denied relief, citing Swain’s prolonged trafficking, possession of a stolen firearm, a high-speed chase, in-prison infractions, and prior violent recidivism.
Swain appealed, arguing the denial was substantively unreasonable because the court relied on conduct already accounted for in his original sentence and failed to justify retaining a much longer sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Collington require procedural and substantive reasonableness review for all §404 First Step Act proceedings (including denials)?	Collington requires procedural and substantive reasonableness review; district court denial must be substantively reasonable.	Collington is limited to grants when courts impose reduced sentences; denials reviewed for abuse of discretion.	Collington applies generally to §404 proceedings; substantive-reasonableness review governs denials and grants.
Was the district court’s denial substantively reasonable given the large gap between original and recalculated Guidelines?	Swain: denial was unreasonable because the court relied on conduct already reflected in the original sentence and did not justify a large variance.	Government: the district court properly exercised discretion under §3553(a) and could deny relief.	The denial was procedurally adequate but substantively unreasonable: the court failed to justify the effective upward variance and gave insufficient weight to the First Step Act’s remedial purpose.

United States v. Collington, 995 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2021) (§404 proceedings require procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 2020) (§3553(a) factors apply in §404 resentencings)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (courts may not presume a sentence outside Guidelines is unreasonable; extent of deviation matters)
Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022) (district courts retain discretion under §404 to deny reductions)
United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2019) (greater deviations require more compelling justifications)
United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2006) (scrutiny increases with substantial variances)