Terry v. United States
Headline: Court limits First Step Act relief to crack offenses that triggered mandatory minimums, blocking resentencing for people convicted under unspecified-quantity crack offenses and excluding some career-offender prisoners.
Holding: A crack offender is eligible for First Step Act resentencing only if convicted of a crack offense whose statutory penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act — i.e., offenses that had triggered mandatory minimums.
- Blocks resentencing for people convicted of unspecified-quantity crack offenses.
- Leaves many career-offender prisoners ineligible for First Step Act relief.
- Limits which crack offenders courts can shorten sentences for under the Act.
Summary
Background
Tarahrick Terry was convicted in 2008 of possession with intent to distribute an unspecified amount of crack cocaine and was sentenced as a career offender to 188 months after the District Court found about 4 grams. In 1986 Congress set three statutory penalties for cocaine: two quantity-based tiers with 5- and 10-year mandatory minimums for certain amounts of crack, and a third penalty for an unspecified amount that had no mandatory minimum. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 raised the crack quantity thresholds, and the First Step Act of 2018 made some of those changes retroactive for eligible offenders.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether the First Step Act’s relief applies to anyone convicted of a crack offense whose statutory penalties were not changed by the Fair Sentencing Act. The First Step Act allows reductions only for a “covered offense,” defined as a federal offense whose statutory penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act. The Court concluded that the Fair Sentencing Act changed the statutory penalties only for the two quantity-based tiers that carried mandatory minimums and did not change the penalties for the unspecified-quantity offense that Terry was convicted under. Because Terry’s statutory penalties were unchanged, he is not a covered offender and is not eligible for a sentence reduction.
Real world impact
The decision prevents people convicted under the unspecified-quantity crack provision from obtaining First Step Act resentencing even if modern law treats their conduct as less serious. It particularly affects some prisoners sentenced as career offenders whose Guideline ranges were driven by recidivism rather than the updated crack quantities. The Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit judgment.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Sotomayor concurred in the judgment but stressed that the ruling leaves career offenders like Terry without relief, noted many career offenders received reductions under other provisions, and urged congressional action to address that gap.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?