Whether the fact that a prisoner is serving a sentence that is significantly longer than the law would now permit, in light of the First Step Act's nonretroactive changes to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), may contribute to a finding that 'extraordinary and compelling reasons' warrant a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)

In 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), Congress authorized courts to reduce a federal prisoner’s otherwise final sentence for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” Congress did not define that phrase and placed a single limitation on its scope: “[r]ehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.” 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). Congress also directed the Sentencing Commission the issue policy statements reflecting the Commission’s “view” as to the “appropriate use of” Section 3582(c)’s modification authority —to include “descri[ptions of] what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a reduction, as well as the “criteria to be applied and a list of specific examples.” Id. § 994(a)(2), (t). In the First Step Act of 2018, Congress amended 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) to eliminate, on a prospective only basis, an entire category of mandatory punishment: “stacked ” sentences for multiple firsttime Section 924(c) offenses. Individuals sentenced prior to the Act’s effective date thus remained subject to “stacked” prison terms that are decades-longer than the terms they would face today for the exact same conduct. The courts of appeals have since openly split over whether a sentencing disparity produced by an intervening, nonretroactive change in law—like the FSA’s anti -“stacking” amendment —may contribute to a finding that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” exist to grant a Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) reduction. In 2023, the Sentencing Commission updated its relevant policy statement to permit courts to consider such disparities as among the reasons for granting a reduction, though only in specific and defined circumstances. USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6), (c). The question presented is: Whether the fact that a prisoner is serving a sentence that is significantly longer than the law would now permit, in light of the First Step Act’s nonretroactive changes to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), may contribute to a finding that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).