United States v. Moore, 412 F.Supp.3d 1111

Background

Moore was convicted by jury in 2009 of a conspiracy to distribute ≥50 grams of cocaine base ("crack") and sentenced to 292 months, later reduced to 235 months.
At sentencing the court attributed roughly 11 kg of cocaine and 1.2 kg of cocaine base to Moore, and found enhancements for obstruction and firearm use.
The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) raised crack thresholds (e.g., 280 g for the 10-year mandatory minimum) but was not retroactive when enacted.
The First Step Act §404 permits discretionary, retroactive reductions for "covered offenses"—offenses whose statutory penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act.
Moore moved under §404 for a sentence reduction; the government argued he was not a covered offender because his conduct still exceeded the revised thresholds and that §404 does not authorize plenary resentencing.
The court held Moore is statutorily eligible (a "covered offense") but denied a reduction on the merits, finding his large drug quantity, obstruction, and firearm findings justify his existing 235-month sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moore committed a "covered offense" under §404(a)	The government: eligibility depends on the particular defendant's sentencing facts; if revised thresholds wouldn't change the statutory penalty, no coverage	Moore: coverage depends on whether the statute (not the individual fact-finding) was later modified by the Fair Sentencing Act	Court: "covered offense" depends on the statute modified by the FSA (offense-focused), so Moore is eligible
Scope of relief under §404(b) — plenary resentencing?	Government: §404(b) should be read like §3582(c)(2), limiting relief and not authorizing plenary resentencing	Moore: court may impose any sentence within the statutory limits of the FSA and consider §3553(a) factors with parties present	Court: §404(b) does not permit revisiting unrelated sentencing findings; it allows modification of the term of imprisonment "as if" FSA applied, but not plenary relitigation of other findings; court has discretion to condition proceedings and need not hold a full resentencing hearing
Which drug-quantity baseline governs eligibility and resentencing	Government: use judge's sentencing quantity findings (by preponderance) made at original sentencing	Moore: Alleyne requires any fact that alters statutory range be found by a jury (or admitted), so jury's finding (≥50 g) controls for what the jury proved beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: adopts majority view applying Alleyne — judge-found quantities alone cannot establish statutory-range facts for §404; jury findings (or plea admissions) control eligibility for relief
Whether a sentence reduction is warranted on the merits	Government: no reduction because, based on court's quantity findings, FSA would not change Moore's statutory range; alternatively, even if eligible, discretionary denial appropriate	Moore: seeks resentencing within FSA statutory limits and consideration of §3553(a) factors	Court: denies reduction—even under FSA ranges Moore's large attributable quantities, obstruction/perjury, and firearm findings justify the existing 235-month term

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Moore, 639 F.3d 443 (8th Cir.) (affirming Moore's conviction and original sentence)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (explaining §3582(c)(2)'s limited modification framework and why it is not plenary resentencing)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (holding facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (holding Guidelines advisory but requiring consideration of Guidelines range)
United States v. Reeves, 717 F.3d 647 (8th Cir.) (noting FSA nonretroactivity before the First Step Act)
United States v. Leanos, 827 F.3d 1167 (8th Cir.) (discussing jury findings or plea admissions as bases for statutory facts)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir.) (requirement to explain deviations from Guidelines)