Terry v. United States

Tarahrick Terry was convicted in 2008 for possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine. In 2019, he sought a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. While his crack cocaine offenses were eligible, his prior conviction for powder cocaine triggered a higher mandatory minimum as a career offender. The District Court and the Eleventh Circuit ruled he was ineligible for relief because his sentence was based on the powder cocaine conviction, not the crack cocaine offenses covered by the Fair Sentencing Act. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, holding that the First Step Act allows reductions only for sentences imposed for "covered offenses," meaning the specific statutory penalties the Fair Sentencing Act modified.

The Supreme Court affirmed 9-0 that Terry was ineligible for a sentence reduction, holding that "covered offense" refers to the statute of conviction carrying modified penalties, not the defendant's broader conduct or drug type.

Whether the First Step Act allows a defendant to receive a sentence reduction if they were convicted of multiple offenses, some of which are not "covered offenses" under the Fair Sentencing Act, and whether eligibility turns on the specific statute of conviction rather than the underlying drug type.

The ruling limited the scope of the First Step Act by clarifying that resentencing relief depends on the specific statutory offense, not the drug involved. It denied relief to certain drug offenders serving lengthy sentences imposed before the Fair Sentencing Act reforms, highlighting the ongoing tension between textualist statutory interpretation and broader criminal justice reform goals.