Can federal judges ignore the current United States Sentencing Guidelines calculation when considering whether to reduce a sentence for a 'covered offense' pursuant to Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2020

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 2008, federal prosecutors compelled federal Judge Carol Jackson to impose a mandatory 20year minimum term for Harris’s possession of 60 grams of crack with intent to distribute by filing a notice of his prior marijuana conviction. Judge Jackson noted that the 20-year term was Congress’s choice, not hers. She rejected the then-applicable career offender Sentencing Guidelines range of 360years to life, which was based on a theft Harris committed as a teenager. In 2010 Congress amended the penalties for crack to address unjustified racial sentencing disparities like the 20-year mandatory term Judge Jackson lamented applying in 2008. In 2018, President Trump and Congress authorized Courts to retroactively apply the 2010 crack sentence reductions to “covered offenses” sentenced before August 2010. The 20-year mandatory term for Harris’s offense dropped to 10 years. His 2019 sentencing guidelines range advised only 120-130 months, due to intervening, empirically-based changes to the career offender definition. A new judge imposed a “slight” reduction of Harris’s 20 year term under the First Step Act, stating he found nothing excessive in the 20 year mandatory term Congress struck down in 2010 and 2018.” He gave no consideration to the 120-130 month Guidelines range recommended for Harris’s offense and record in 2019. The issue presented here is: Can federal judges ignore the current United States Sentencing Guidelines calculation when considering whether to reduce a sentence for a “covered offense” pursuant to Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2020, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, a question on which the Circuits disagree? 2