986 F.3d 942
5th Cir.2021Background:
- Jonathan Winters pled guilty (2009) to a dual-object conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 involving both crack cocaine and powder cocaine (offense conduct 1991–2006).
- At sentencing the statutory range was 10 years to life; original sentence 360 months, later reduced to 288 months (2011) and to 233 months (2017) before the First Step Act motion.
- The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) raised quantity thresholds for crack-cocaine mandatory minima; the First Step Act (2018) made those changes retroactive for certain "covered offenses."
- The U.S. Probation Office deemed Winters ineligible because the powder-cocaine object still produced a ten‑year mandatory minimum; Winters moved for relief arguing the crack-object alone makes the conspiracy a "covered offense."
- The district court granted a discretionary reduction from 233 to 180 months; the Government appealed only the eligibility ruling. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a multi‑object conspiracy is a "covered offense" under First Step Act §404(a) | United States: Not covered because an unmodified object (powder) still dictated the same statutory range, so penalties for the conspiracy were not "modified." | Winters: §404(a) looks to the statute of conviction; if the Fair Sentencing Act modified penalties for any object in the conspiracy (crack), the offense is covered. | Held: Covered. §404(a) is satisfied if the statute of conviction includes at least one object whose statutory penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act. |
| Whether the district court had authority under §404(b) to reduce Winters’ sentence when overall statutory range remained unchanged | United States: Implicitly argued reduction improper if Fair Sentencing Act would not change movant's statutory floor. | Winters: Court may apply the "as if" clause and exercise discretion if the current sentence exceeds the statutory minimum under the Fair Sentencing Act. | Held: Court had authority. Because Winters’ sentence (233 mo.) exceeded the applicable statutory minimum under the Fair Sentencing Act, the district court could reduce the sentence "as if" the Act were in effect. |
| Whether §404(c) limitations barred relief | United States: Asserted ineligibility due to the unchanged overall statutory range (overlaps with first argument). | Winters: §404(c) limitations do not apply here (no previous reduction "in accordance with" the Fair Sentencing Act or prior §404 denial on the merits). | Held: §404(c) did not apply; no statutory bar to consideration or reduction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (explains Fair Sentencing Act reduced crack/powder disparity)
- United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2019) (eligibility inquiry depends on statute of conviction)
- United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2019) (describes limited "as if" resentencing authority under First Step Act)
- United States v. Gravatt, 953 F.3d 258 (4th Cir. 2020) (held dual‑object conspiracy is a covered offense)
- United States v. Taylor, 982 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2020) (held First Step Act covers multidrug conspiracies that include a crack element)
- United States v. Lott, [citation="830 F. App'x 366"] (2d Cir. 2020) (unpublished in text but reporter‑published decision holding the opposite: no coverage where overall range unchanged)
- United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020) (discusses limits where movant already at statutory floor)