First Step Act Denials Reviewed for Unreasonableness, Too

US v. Swain: In 2008, Swain pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine and sentenced to 324 months in prison, the bottom of the applicable Guideline range. In 2019, he moved for a reduced sentence under the First Step Act, arguing that his Guideline range had dropped to 210 to 262 months (probation calculated it as 262 to 327 months. The district court concluded Swain was eligible for a reduction, but exercised its discretion not to give one after “completely review[ing] the entire record, the parties’ arguments, the new advisory guideline range [Swain’s, the court assumed], and all relevant factors under 18 USC 3553(a).”

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s decision. To start, the court had to determine the proper standard of review, with Swain arguing it was for reasonableness and the Government arguing it was for abuse of discretion. The Government’s argument attempted to limit the court’s decision in Collington to similar factual scenarios, where the un-reduced sentence was greater than the newly applicable statutory maximum. The court disagreed, concluding that “substantive reasonableness review applies to all section 404 proceedings.” Applying that standard, the court noted that “here, the district court did not explicitly acknowledge it was effectively retaining a variant sentence, let alone why it believed such a large upward variance was warranted.” The exercise of discretion to deny relief under the First Step Act “must be reviewed in light of the First Step Act’s remedial purpose.” Because the district court “relied largely on the same factual basis to deny [Swain]’s motion for a reduced sentence as it did to impose its initial bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence,” its decision was substantively unreasonable.

Congrats to the Defender officer in EDNC on the win!