Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range

(Policy Statement) (a) AUTHORITY.— §1B1.10 (1) IN GENERAL.—In a case in which a defendant is serving a term of im- prisonment, and the guideline range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guide- lines Manual listed in subsection (d) below, the court may reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). As required by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), any such reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment shall be consistent with this policy statement. (2) EXCLUSIONS.—A reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not author- ized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if— (A) none of the amendments listed in subsection (d) is applicable to the defendant; or (B) an amendment listed in subsection (d) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range. (3) LIMITATION.—Consistent with subsection (b), proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant. (b) DETERMINATION OF REDUCTION IN TERM OF IMPRISONMENT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In determining whether, and to what extent, a reduc- tion in the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement is warranted, the court shall determine the amended guideline range that would have been appli- cable to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines listed in subsection (d) had been in effect at the time the defendant was sen- tenced. In making such determination, the court shall substitute only the amendments listed in subsection (d) for the corresponding guide- line provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected. (2) LIMITATION AND PROHIBITION ON EXTENT OF REDUCTION.— (A) LIMITATION.—Except as provided in subdivision (B), the court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is Guidelines Manual (November 1, 2024) ║ 39 §1B1.10 less than the minimum of the amended guideline range deter- mined under subdivision (1) of this subsection. (B) EXCEPTION FOR SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE.—If the term of impris- onment imposed was less than the term of imprisonment pro- vided by the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities, a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range determined under subdivision (1) of this subsection may be appropriate. (C) PROHIBITION.—In no event may the reduced term of imprison- ment be less than the term of imprisonment the defendant has already served. (c) CASES INVOLVING MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES AND SUBSTANTIAL AS- SISTANCE.—If the case involves a statutorily required minimum sentence and the court had the authority to impose a sentence below the statutorily required minimum sentence pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities, then for purposes of this policy statement the amended guideline range shall be determined without regard to the operation of §5G1.1 (Sentencing on a Single Count of Conviction) and §5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Conviction). (d) COVERED AMENDMENTS.—Amendments covered by this policy statement are listed in Appendix C as follows: 126, 130, 156, 176, 269, 329, 341, 371, 379, 380, 433, 454, 461, 484, 488, 490, 499, 505, 506, 516, 591, 599, 606, 657, 702, 706 as amended by 711, 715, 750 (parts A and C only), 782 (sub- ject to subsection (e)(1)), and 821 (parts A and B, subpart 1 only and subject to subsection (e)(2)). (e) SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS.— (1) The court shall not order a reduced term of imprisonment based on Amendment 782 unless the effective date of the court’s order is No- vember 1, 2015, or later. (2) The court shall not order a reduced term of imprisonment based on Part A or Part B, Subpart 1 of Amendment 821 unless the effective date of the court’s order is February 1, 2024, or later. Application Notes: 1. Application of Subsection (a).— Commentary (A) Eligibility.—Eligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment listed in subsection (d) that lowers the applicable guideline range (i.e., the 40 ║ Guidelines Manual (November 1, 2024) §1B1.10 guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and criminal history category deter- mined pursuant to §1B1.1(a), which is determined before consideration of any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any variance). Accordingly, a reduction in the de- fendant’s term of imprisonment is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and is not consistent with this policy statement if: (i) none of the amendments listed in subsection (d) is applicable to the defendant; or (ii) an amendment listed in subsection (d) is applicable to the defendant but the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s ap- plicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment). (B) Factors for Consideration.— (i) In General.—Consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the court shall consider the fac- tors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in determining: (I) whether a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is warranted; and (II) the extent of such reduction, but only within the limits described in subsection (b). (ii) Public Safety Consideration.—The court shall consider the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that may be posed by a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment in determining: (I) whether such a reduction is war- ranted; and (II) the extent of such reduction, but only within the limits described in subsection (b). (iii) Post-Sentencing Conduct.—The court may consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant that occurred after imposition of the term of imprisonment in determining: (I) whether a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is warranted; and (II) the extent of such reduction, but only within the limits described in subsection (b). 2. Application of Subsection (b)(1).—In determining the amended guideline range under sub- section (b)(1), the court shall substitute only the amendments listed in subsection (d) for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced. All other guideline application decisions remain unaffected. 3. Application of Subsection (b)(2).—Under subsection (b)(2), the amended guideline range de- termined under subsection (b)(1) and the term of imprisonment already served by the defendant limit the extent to which the court may reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement. Specifically, as provided in subsection (b)(2)(A), if the term of imprisonment imposed was within the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing, the court may reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment to a term that is no less than the minimum term of imprisonment provided by the amended guideline range determined under subsection (b)(1). For example, in a case in which: (A) the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing was 70 to 87 months; (B) the term of im- prisonment imposed was 70 months; and (C) the amended guideline range determined under subsection (b)(1) is 51 to 63 months, the court may reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment, but shall not reduce it to a term less than 51 months. If the term of imprisonment imposed was outside the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing, the limitation in subsection (b)(2)(A) also applies. Thus, if the term of imprisonment imposed in the example provided above was not a sentence of 70 months (within the guidelines range) but instead was a sentence of 56 months (constituting a downward depar- ture or variance), the court likewise may reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment, but shall not reduce it to a term less than 51 months. Guidelines Manual (November 1, 2024) ║ 41 §1B1.10 Subsection (b)(2)(B) provides an exception to this limitation, which applies if the term of impris- onment imposed was less than the term of imprisonment provided by the guideline range appli- cable to the defendant at the time of sentencing pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities. In such a case, the court may reduce the de- fendant’s term, but the reduction is not limited by subsection (b)(2)(A) to the minimum of the amended guideline range. Instead, as provided in subsection (b)(2)(B), the court may, if appro- priate, provide a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range. Thus, if the term of imprisonment imposed in the example provided above was 56 months pursuant to a govern- ment motion to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities (representing a down- ward departure of 20 percent below the minimum term of imprisonment provided by the guide- line range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing), a reduction to a term of impris- onment of 41 months (representing a reduction of approximately 20 percent below the minimum term of imprisonment provided by the amended guideline range) would amount to a comparable reduction and may be appropriate. The provisions authorizing such a government motion are §5K1.1 (Substantial Assistance to Au- thorities) (authorizing, upon government motion, a downward departure based on the defend- ant’s substantial assistance); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (authorizing the court, upon government mo- tion, to impose a sentence below a statutory minimum to reflect the defendant’s substantial as- sistance); and Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) (authorizing the court, upon government motion, to reduce a sentence to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance). In no case, however, shall the term of imprisonment be reduced below time served. See subsec- tion (b)(2)(C). Subject to these limitations, the sentencing court has the discretion to determine whether, and to what extent, to reduce a term of imprisonment under this section. 4. Application of Subsection (c).—As stated in subsection (c), if the case involves a statutorily required minimum sentence and the court had the authority to impose a sentence below the statutorily required minimum sentence pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defend- ant’s substantial assistance to authorities, then for purposes of this policy statement the amended guideline range shall be determined without regard to the operation of §5G1.1 (Sen- tencing on a Single Count of Conviction) and §5G1.2 (Sentencing on Multiple Counts of Convic- tion). For example: (A) Defendant A is subject to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 120 months. The original guideline range at the time of sentencing was 135 to 168 months, which is entirely above the mandatory minimum, and the court imposed a sentence of 101 months pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities. The court determines that the amended guideline range as calculated on the Sentencing Table is 108 to 135 months. Ordinarily, §5G1.1 would operate to restrict the amended guideline range to 120 to 135 months, to reflect the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. For purposes of this policy statement, however, the amended guideline range remains 108 to 135 months. To the extent the court considers it appropriate to provide a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(B), Defendant A’s original sen- tence of 101 months amounted to a reduction of approximately 25 percent below the mini- mum of the original guideline range of 135 months. Therefore, an amended sentence of 81 months (representing a reduction of approximately 25 percent below the minimum of the amended guideline range of 108 months) would amount to a comparable reduction and may be appropriate. (B) Defendant B is subject to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 120 months. The original guideline range at the time of sentencing (as calculated on the Sentencing Table) 42 ║ Guidelines Manual (November 1, 2024) §1B1.10 was 108 to 135 months, which was restricted by operation of §5G1.1 to a range of 120 to 135 months. See §5G1.1(c)(2). The court imposed a sentence of 90 months pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities. The court determines that the amended guideline range as calculated on the Sentencing Table is 87 to 108 months. Ordinarily, §5G1.1 would operate to restrict the amended guideline range to precisely 120 months, to reflect the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. See §5G1.1(b). For purposes of this policy statement, however, the amended guideline range is considered to be 87 to 108 months (i.e., unrestricted by operation of §5G1.1 and the stat- utory minimum of 120 months). To the extent the court considers it appropriate to provide a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(B), Defendant B’s original sen- tence of 90 months amounted to a reduction of approximately 25 percent below the original guideline range of 120 months. Therefore, an amended sentence of 65 months (representing a reduction of approximately 25 percent below the minimum of the amended guideline range of 87 months) would amount to a comparable reduction and may be appropriate. 5. Application to Amendment 750 (Parts A and C Only).—As specified in subsection (d), the parts of Amendment 750 that are covered by this policy statement are Parts A and C only. Part A amended the Drug Quantity Table in §2D1.1 for crack cocaine and made related revisions to the Drug Equivalency Tables (currently called Drug Conversion Tables) in the Commentary to §2D1.1 (see §2D1.1, comment. (n.8)). Part C deleted the cross reference in §2D2.1(b) under which an offender who possessed more than 5 grams of crack cocaine was sentenced under §2D1.1. 6. Application to Amendment 782.—As specified in subsection (d) and (e)(1), Amendment 782 (generally revising the Drug Quantity Table and chemical quantity tables across drug and chem- ical types) is covered by this policy statement only in cases in which the order reducing the de- fendant’s term of imprisonment has an effective date of November 1, 2015, or later. A reduction based on retroactive application of Amendment 782 that does not comply with the requirement that the order take effect on November 1, 2015, or later is not consistent with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Subsection (e)(1) does not preclude the court from conducting sentence reduction proceedings and entering orders under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement before November 1, 2015, provided that any order reducing the defendant’s term of imprisonment has an effective date of November 1, 2015, or later. 7. Application to Amendment 821 (Parts A and B, Subpart 1 Only).—As specified in subsec- tion (d), the parts of Amendment 821 that are covered by this policy statement are Parts A and B, Subpart 1 only, subject to the special instruction at subsection (e)(2). Part A amended §4A1.1 (Criminal History Category) to limit the overall criminal history impact of “status points” (i.e., the additional criminal history points given to defendants for the fact of having committed the instant offense while under a criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, super- vised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status). Part B, Subpart 1 created a new Chapter Four guideline at §4C1.1 (Adjustment for Certain Zero-Point Offenders) to provide a decrease of two levels from the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three for de- fendants who did not receive any criminal history points under Chapter Four, Part A and whose instant offense did not involve specified aggravating factors. The special instruction at subsection (e)(2) delays the effective date of orders reducing a defend- ant’s term of imprisonment to a date no earlier than February 1, 2024. A reduction based on the retroactive application of Part A or Part B, Subpart 1 of Amendment 821 that does not comply with the requirement that the order take effect no earlier than February 1, 2024, is not consistent Guidelines Manual (November 1, 2024) ║ 43 §1B1.10 with this policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Subsec- tion (e)(2), however, does not preclude the court from conducting sentence reduction proceedings and entering orders under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement before February 1, 2024, provided that any order reducing the defendant’s term of imprisonment has an effective date of February 1, 2024, or later. 8. Supervised Release.— (A) Exclusion Relating to Revocation.—Only a term of imprisonment imposed as part of the original sentence is authorized to be reduced under this section. This section does not authorize a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release. (B) Modification Relating to Early Termination.—If the prohibition in subsection (b)(2)(C) relating to time already served precludes a reduction in the term of imprisonment to the extent the court determines otherwise would have been appropriate as a result of the amended guideline range determined under subsection (b)(1), the court may consider any such reduction that it was unable to grant in connection with any motion for early termi- nation of a term of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). However, the fact that a defendant may have served a longer term of imprisonment than the court determines would have been appropriate in view of the amended guideline range determined under subsection (b)(1) shall not, without more, provide a basis for early termination of supervised release. Rather, the court should take into account the totality of circumstances relevant to a decision to terminate supervised release, including the term of supervised release that would have been appropriate in connection with a sentence under the amended guideline range determined under subsection (b)(1). 9. Use of Policy Statement in Effect on Date of Reduction.—Consistent with subsection (a) of §1B1.11 (Use of Guidelines Manual in Effect on Date of Sentencing), the court shall use the version of this policy statement that is in effect on the date on which the court reduces the de- fendant’s term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Background: Section 3582(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, provides: “[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), upon motion of the de- fendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” This policy statement provides guidance and limitations for a court when considering a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and implements 28 U.S.C. § 994(u), which provides: “If the Commission reduces the term of imprisonment recommended in the guidelines applicable to a particular offense or category of offenses, it shall specify in what circumstances and by what amount the sentences of pris- oners serving terms of imprisonment for the offense may be reduced.” The Supreme Court has con- cluded that proceedings under section 3582(c)(2) are not governed by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and this policy statement remains binding on courts in such proceedings. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010). Among the factors considered by the Commission in selecting the amendments included in sub- section (d) were the purpose of the amendment, the magnitude of the change in the guideline range made by the amendment, and the difficulty of applying the amendment retroactively to determine an amended guideline range under subsection (b)(1). 44 ║ Guidelines Manual (November 1, 2024) §1B1.11 The listing of an amendment in subsection (d) reflects policy determinations by the Commission that a reduced guideline range is sufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing and that, in the sound discretion of the court, a reduction in the term of imprisonment may be appropriate for previously sentenced, qualified defendants. The authorization of such a discretionary reduction does not other- wise affect the lawfulness of a previously imposed sentence, does not authorize a reduction in any other component of the sentence, and does not entitle a defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment as a matter of right. The Commission has not included in this policy statement amendments that generally reduce the maximum of the guideline range by less than six months. This criterion is in accord with the legislative history of 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) (formerly § 994(t)), which states: “It should be noted that the Committee does not expect that the Commission will recommend adjusting existing sentences under the provision when guidelines are simply refined in a way that might cause isolated instances of ex- isting sentences falling above the old guidelines* or when there is only a minor downward adjustment in the guidelines. The Committee does not believe the courts should be burdened with adjustments in these cases.” S. Rep. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 180 (1983). *So in original. Probably should be “to fall above the amended guidelines”. Historical Note Effective November 1, 1989 (amendment 306). Amended effective November 1, 1990 (amendment 360); No- vember 1, 1991 (amendment 423); November 1, 1992 (amendment 469); November 1, 1993 (amend- ment 502); November 1, 1994 (amendment 504); November 1, 1995 (amendment 536); November 1, 1997 (amendment 548); November 1, 2000 (amendment 607); November 5, 2003 (amendment 662); November 1, 2007 (amendment 710); March 3, 2008 (amendments 712 and 713); May 1, 2008 (amendment 716); Novem- ber 1, 2011 (amendment 759); November 1, 2012 (amendment 770); November 1, 2014 (amendments 780, 788, and 789); November 1, 2018 (amendment 808); November 1, 2023 (amendments 824 and 825).