Sentence Package Doctrine Can Apply to Allow Reduction of Otherwise Non-Covered First Step Act Offenses

US v. Richardson: In 1996, Richardson was convicted of multiple counts related to drug trafficking, including one count of engaging in a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (“CCE”) and one count of distribution of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to concurrent life terms on both, along with statutory maximum terms of years on other counts. In 2019, he filed for relief under the First Step Act, arguing that it reduced his previous life Guideline “range” to 360 months to life. The district court concluded that Richardson was eligible for relief on the crack count, but exercised its discretion to deny relief.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit remanded in light of it’s decision in Collington, which (at the time) required a reduction under the First Step Act if the defendant’s current sentence was higher than the newly applicable statutory maximum. The district court concluded that Richardson was not eligible for a reduced sentence on the CCE count because that was not a covered offense (based on intervening Fourth Circuit law), but reiterated its conclusion that he was eligible on the crack charge, reducing that sentence to 480 months, the new statutory maximum.

On appeal, for the second time, the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, for the second time. Since the last remand the court had held that Covington was no longer good law in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion, meaning that the district court could have completely refused to reduce Richardson’s sentence. However, the district court also could have employed the “sentencing package doctrine” and exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence on the CCE count as well, if it was related to the crack count that was the First Step Act covered offense. The court rejected the Government’s arguments that the doctrine shouldn’t apply, concluding that it was ultimately up to the district court, in the first instance, to determine its applicability.