United States v. Walter Boulding, 960 F.3d 774

In 2008 Walter Boulding was convicted of conspiracy to distribute >=50g of crack (Count I) and possession with intent to distribute >=5g of crack (Count II); the jury found 50g on Count I and 5g on Count II. The PSR attributed 650.4g to Boulding.
The government filed a §851 notice charging prior felony drug convictions; the then-mandatory statutory scheme produced a life sentence on Count I; district court imposed life and affirmed on appeal.
After the First Step Act (2018) Boulding moved for resentencing under §404; the district court found him eligible, reduced his sentence to 324 months, but denied a de novo resentencing hearing and refused to permit him to re-raise objections to sentencing enhancements.
Boulding appealed the limited process afforded at resentencing; the government cross-appealed eligibility under the First Step Act.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed eligibility, held that eligibility is categorical (tied to the statute of conviction), but vacated the sentence and remanded because the district court denied Boulding an opportunity to present objections to the amended Guidelines calculation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether First Step Act eligibility depends on the statute of conviction or the defendant’s specific conduct/quantity	Boulding: eligibility is categorical — if convicted under a statute whose statutory penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act, he is eligible.	Government: eligibility depends on the specific violation/quantity in the record; if the defendant’s conduct would still trigger the (now-modified) statutory penalty, no relief.	Eligibility turns on the statute of conviction (categorical inquiry), not a fact-specific quantity inquiry.
What process is required at First Step Act resentencing (plenary hearing; opportunity to object)	Boulding: not entitled to full de novo resentencing, but must get accurate amended Guidelines and an opportunity to present objections (written or oral).	Government: permitting re-litigation of enhancements/functionally plenary resentencing is unnecessary; limited proceedings suffice.	Not entitled to plenary resentencing, but at minimum the court must calculate the amended Guidelines accurately, reconsider §3553(a) factors, and afford defendants an opportunity to present objections.

United States v. Alexander, 951 F.3d 706 (6th Cir. 2019) (First Step Act proceedings do not automatically entitle defendant to plenary resentencing)
United States v. Beamus, 943 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2019) (eligibility is based on the statute of conviction modified by Fair Sentencing Act)
United States v. Woods, 949 F.3d 934 (6th Cir. 2020) (post-revocation sentence relates to original statutory conviction for First Step Act eligibility)
United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2019) (interpreting §404(a) to tie “statutory penalties” to the statute of conviction)
United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2019) (same: statute-of-conviction interpretation of §404(a))
United States v. Shaw, 957 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2020) (joined the consensus that eligibility is statute-based)
Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (U.S. 2006) (canon of the last antecedent informing statutory interpretation)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (requirements for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)