Bobby Lee Ingram v. United States

Under the First Step Act of 2018, courts may reduce certain previously imposed sentences to match the penalties in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. The First Step Act describes a two-step process. First, the court determines whether the defendant is eligible for relief by considering whether he was sentenced for an “elements” now result in a "statutory offense whose "elements" “statutory penalt[y]” “modified” by the Fair Sentencing penalt[y]" that was "modified" Act. Terry v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1858, 1862-63 (2021). Second, if a defendant is eligible, then the court can exercise its discretion to impose a reduced “consider[ing] sentence, "consider [ing] intervening changes of law or fact.” Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, fact." 2404 (2022). The Eleventh Circuit—alone among its sister circuits—nevertheless categorically denies relief to cerApprendi v. New tain defendants sentenced before Apprendi Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). For pre-Apprendi preApprendi defendants, the Eleventh Circuit creates a hypothetical element of the offense based on the drug quantity found by the judge at sentencing. If that hypothetical element would have resulted in a statutory penalty that was not modified by the Fair Sentencing Act, then the District Court cannot reduce the defendant's defendant’s sentence. See United States v. Jackson, 58 F.4th 1331 (11th Cir. 2023). The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Eleventh Circuit has violated Terry in holding that, at step one, district courts should dis“elements” of a defendant's regard the "elements" defendant’s offense, and (i)