Whether district courts are required to apply the current, legally correct Sentencing Guideline range or the old Sentencing Guideline range that applied at the original sentencing when deciding whether to impose a reduced sentence under Section 404 of the First Step Act

QUESTION PRESENTED In 2008, petitioner Shannon Keith Harris received mandatory life sentences for two federal drug trafficking convictions involving 1.26 grams of cocaine base (crack cocaine) and 102.1 grams of powder cocaine. Ten years later, Congress passed the First Step Act, in part to remedy the disparity between powder cocaine and crack cocaine sentences. Under the First Step Act, Mr. Harris became eligible for discretionary resentencing with a new statutory range of ten years up to life in prison, instead of the original mandatory life sentences. The current Sentencing Guidelines now recommend that he receive a prison sentence of 120 months, which is less than the time he has already served. But the Fifth Circuit holds that the First Step Act requires district courts to apply the law as it existed at the original sentencing, without any intervening changes except for those changes mandated by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. So the district court was required to sentence Mr. Harris under the old Guideline range of 360 months to life in prison, instead of the current Guideline of 120 months in prison. Using the old Guideline range, the district court resentenced Mr. Harris to life in prison. The question presented is: When deciding whether to impose a reduced sentence under Section 404 of the First Step Act, are district courts required to apply the current, legally correct Sentencing Guideline range or the old Sentencing Guideline range that applied at the original sentencing? i