United States v. Olaitan Fowowe, 1 F.4th 522

Background

In 2008 Fowowe pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50+ grams of crack cocaine; he was sentenced in 2009 to 262 months (below the statutory mandatory life term because of the government's §3553(e) motion) and later reduced to 235 months in 2015 under Amendment 782.
The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced crack-to-powder disparities but originally was not retroactive to defendants sentenced before August 3, 2010.
The First Step Act §404(b) (2018) permits district courts to reduce sentences for covered crack offenses "as if" the Fair Sentencing Act were in effect, but does not require relief.
Fowowe moved in 2020 under §404(b); the parties agreed the Fair Sentencing Act changed the applicable statutory range (initially treated as a 10‑year mandatory minimum), and Fowowe sought a 180‑month sentence.
Fowowe supplemented his motion citing United States v. Ruth (7th Cir. 2020), which he argued eliminated an enhancement from his prior state convictions and would further lower his statutory range; the district court denied further reduction (kept 235 months) but shortened supervised release to eight years without substantively addressing Ruth.
The Seventh Circuit posed and resolved a question of first impression in the circuit: whether §404(b) requires or merely authorizes district courts to apply intervening judicial decisions when evaluating First Step Act motions, and affirmed the district court.

Issues

Issue	Fowowe's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether §404(b) requires district courts to apply intervening judicial decisions when recalculating the sentence range	District court was required to apply Ruth and recalculate the statutory range accordingly	§404(b) does not require applying intervening decisions; at most it authorizes consideration	§404(b) authorizes but does not require application of intervening judicial decisions
Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider Fowowe's Ruth‑based arguments	Failure to meaningfully address Ruth is a procedural error warranting reversal	The court acknowledged supplemental briefing and gave substantive reasons for denial; no bare‑bones ruling	No procedural error—court’s explanation was sufficient
Whether the sentencing range was miscalculated because Ruth would eliminate an enhancement	Ruth removes the enhancement, changing the mandatory minimum and supervised‑release calculations	Even if Ruth would change the range, the court was not required to apply it; thus no procedural defect	No reversible error—applying Ruth was discretionary and district court did not abuse its discretion
Whether denial of a further reduction was an abuse of discretion	Fowowe sought further reduction to 180 months based on revised range and mitigation	District court relied on prior reduction, offense gravity, weapons, deterrence, and §3553(a) factors to deny further reduction	Affirmed—the denial did not constitute an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (explains Fair Sentencing Act’s reduction of crack penalties and retroactivity context)
United States v. Ruth, 966 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2020) (held certain Illinois cocaine convictions do not trigger §841(b)(1)(C) enhancement; relied on by Fowowe)
United States v. Corner, 967 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2020) (§404(b) requires recalculation of sentencing range "as if" Fair Sentencing Act were in effect)
United States v. Hudson, 967 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2020) (two‑step framework for §404(b) review and permissive use of §3553(a) factors)
United States v. Shaw, 957 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2020) (guidance on factors district courts may consider under First Step Act)
United States v. Lancaster, 997 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2021) (holds district courts must apply intervening decisions when recalculating Guidelines)
United States v. Chambers, 956 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 2020) (similar; required recalculation where intervening law eliminated career‑offender classification)
United States v. Moore, 975 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2020) (First Step Act does not require plenary resentencing beyond Fair Sentencing Act changes)
United States v. Maxwell, 991 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2021) (authorizes district courts to consider intervening judicial decisions but does not require them)
United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2019) (limits consideration to changes flowing from the Fair Sentencing Act)
United States v. Foreman, 958 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2020) (district courts need not conduct plenary resentencing; may consider intervening developments)
United States v. Kelley, 962 F.3d 470 (9th Cir. 2020) (First Step Act does not authorize considering legal changes after the offense beyond those tied to the Fair Sentencing Act)
United States v. Taylor, 982 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2020) (rejects entitlement to full resentencing incorporating all subsequent changes in law)