United States v. Terry Woods, 61 F.4th 471

Background

Marshane and Terry Woods were convicted in 2005 of conspiring to distribute large quantities of powder and crack cocaine and were sentenced to life imprisonment; PSRs classified them as career offenders under the Guidelines.
The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced crack cocaine statutory penalties, and the Sentencing Commission later amended Guidelines drug-equivalency and base-level tables; those amendments initially were not retroactive to the Woodses.
In 2017 President Obama commuted both brothers to 360 months; the First Step Act (2018) made the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive and permitted district courts to reduce sentences "as if" the Fair Sentencing Act had been in effect at the time of the offense.
In 2020 the Woodses moved for First Step Act reductions; the district court found them eligible, recalculated Guidelines ranges (treating them as career offenders under the 2018 Guidelines), and granted reduced sentences of 306 months (Marshane) and 324 months (Terry).
On appeal the Woodses argued the district court should have applied Havis (6th Cir.) — holding that inchoate offenses such as conspiracy are not "controlled substance offenses" for career-offender purposes — and other intervening Guideline changes, so they were never career offenders.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed: it held the district court was required when recalculating the Guidelines benchmark to account only for changes attributable to the Fair Sentencing Act; the Woodses invited the district court’s reliance on career-offender status during the §3553(a) analysis, and any error was not plain.

Issues

Issue	Woods' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the district court, when recalculating the Guidelines range under the First Step Act, had to apply Havis (that conspiracy is not a §4B1.2 controlled-substance offense).	Havis is a retroactive legal change that should be applied when recalculating Guidelines under Concepcion and the First Step Act.	First Step Act requires recalculation only to reflect Fair Sentencing Act changes; Havis is unrelated and need not be applied at the benchmark recalculation stage.	Court: District courts must alter only the variable changed by the Fair Sentencing Act when recalculating the Guidelines; Havis need not be applied at that stage.
Whether the district court procedurally erred in computing the amended Guidelines ranges.	The court miscalculated by failing to apply intervening Guideline changes (Havis, Amendment 709) that remove career-offender status and lower criminal history.	The recalculation required by the First Step Act correctly accounted only for Fair Sentencing Act effects; the benchmark recalculation was proper.	Court: No procedural error in the recalculation stage; the benchmark range was correctly determined under the First Step Act.
Whether the district court’s use of the then-current Guidelines (treating the Woodses as career offenders) in the §3553(a) analysis requires remand.	Using current law (post-Havis) in §3553(a) would have produced a lower Guidelines benchmark and different variance.	The Woodses themselves invited the district court’s focus on career-offender status; invited errors are reviewed only for plain error, which is not met here.	Court: The Woodses invited the error; any error at the §3553(a) stage was not obvious or prejudicial enough to meet plain-error review, so no remand.
Whether other unraised issues (Amendment 709 criminal-history recalculation; DOJ support for EQUAL Act) warrant resentencing.	Amendment 709 would lower Terry’s criminal-history category; DOJ support for EQUAL Act shows policy change favoring reduction.	These arguments were forfeited below; Amendment 709 matters only if Havis applies; DOJ policy statements lack legal force and were irrelevant to sentencing.	Court: Forfeited issues do not satisfy plain-error standards and do not require remand.

Key Cases Cited

Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022) (First Step Act requires recalculation of Guidelines only to reflect Fair Sentencing Act changes; district courts retain discretion to consider other changes at §3553(a) stage)
Havis v. United States, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (for career-offender purposes, "controlled substance offense" excludes inchoate offenses like attempt)
Cordero v. United States, 973 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2020) (applies Havis to hold conspiracy is not a §4B1.2 controlled-substance offense)
Maxwell v. United States, 991 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2021) (First Step Act resentencing is not a plenary resentencing; courts should apply only Fair Sentencing Act changes in recalculation)
Montgomery v. United States, 998 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2021) (discusses standards for invited error and plain-error review in First Step Act resentencings)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Guidelines remain the starting point and initial benchmark; sentencing review standards)
Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013) (benchmarks for Guidelines calculations and retroactivity principles)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (effect of Guidelines miscalculation on substantial rights analysis)
Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (plain-error review for unpreserved Guidelines calculation errors)
Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (statutory penalties control over Guidelines where applicable)