United States v. Warren, 22 F.4th 917

Background

Warren was convicted in 2008 of crack-cocaine trafficking and being a felon in possession; sentenced to 240 months after a downward variance from a Guidelines range of 360–life.
The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) later reduced crack penalties prospectively; the First Step Act (2018) made that relief retroactive and authorized motions to reduce pre‑Fair‑Sentencing Act sentences.
Warren moved under the First Step Act in July 2019; he asked for a 175‑month sentence (applying the same percentage variance to the reduced Guidelines range); the district court denied relief under §3553(a).
Warren filed a reconsideration motion in June 2020, arguing (1) his career‑offender designation was improper (which would lower his Guidelines range) and (2) COVID‑19 warranted relief; the Government waived procedural/timeliness defenses.
The district court denied reconsideration applying the Rule 60(b)/reconsideration standard, declined to reach the COVID‑19 argument (erroneously but harmlessly), and assumed arguendo no career‑offender status but concluded the 240‑month sentence remained appropriate.
On appeal Warren challenged only denial of reconsideration; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Warren's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether §404(c) of the First Step Act bars motions to reconsider	§404(c) applies only to motions “made under this section,” so it does not bar court‑created motions for reconsideration	§404(c) or §3582(c) forecloses motions for reconsideration of §404(b) denials	§404(c) does not bar motions for reconsideration (it applies only to §404 motions themselves)
Whether 18 U.S.C. §3582(c) abolishes common‑law reconsideration power or is jurisdictional	Motions to reconsider are procedural aspects of §3582 relief and thus permissible; §3582 does not negate inherent authority	§3582(c) ties sentence modification to enumerated paths and operates as a jurisdictional bar to reconsideration	Tenth Circuit treats motions for reconsideration as available under §3582; timeliness is a claim‑processing rule, not jurisdictional here, so waiver effective
Whether the district court could apply the Rule 60(b)/reconsideration standard despite Government waiver	Warren: waiver of procedural bars precluded application of that reconsideration standard	Government: waiver covered timeliness/procedural defects but cannot bind the court on legal standard	Court: district court must apply the settled reconsideration standard (parties cannot stipulate to an incorrect legal standard); no reversible error in applying it
Whether district court erred by refusing to consider COVID‑19 and by not calculating an alternative Guidelines range without career‑offender status	COVID‑19 could not have been raised earlier but should be considered now; district court should have made an explicit alternative Guidelines calculation without career‑offender status	COVID‑19 argument was not available at original motion; even if considered, Warren showed no individualized COVID vulnerability; district court implicitly assumed no career‑offender and still found sentence appropriate	Refusal to consider COVID‑19 was erroneous but harmless (no individualized showing); district court did not err in its approach to career‑offender issue because it assumed the designation did not apply and still found 240 months appropriate

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2011) (motions to reconsider in criminal cases are permitted; timeliness measured by appeal period)
United States v. Rollins, 607 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2010) (recognizing common‑law authority for reconsideration in criminal matters)
United States v. Christy, 739 F.3d 534 (10th Cir. 2014) (adopting Rule 60(b)‑style standard for criminal reconsideration)
United States v. McGaughy, 670 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2012) (describing §3582(c) limits as jurisdictional under prior precedent)
Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698 (2020) (discussing motions to alter or amend judgment and the characterization of successive petitions)
United States v. Mannie, 971 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2020) (procedural posture and standards for First Step Act/§3582 review)
United States v. Crooks, 997 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2021) (career‑offender status may be reviewed in First Step Act proceedings)
United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594 (3d Cir. 2020) (the existence of COVID‑19 in society alone does not justify compassionate release)
United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027 (10th Cir. 2021) (district court may deny compassionate release absent individualized high risk and facility outbreak evidence)
Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019) (clarifying when statutory prescriptions are jurisdictional)