In United States v. Denson, No. 19-11696 (June 24,
2020) (Hull, Grant, Luck), the Court held—without oral argument—that Section
404 of the First Step Act does not require a district court to hold a hearing with
the defendant present before ruling on a
motion for a reduced sentence.
In this case, the district court granted the defendant’s
motion and reduced his sentence to the low-end of the new guideline range, but it
declined to go lower as the defendant had requested. On appeal, the defendant argued that the
court was required to hold a hearing with him present. Joining the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, the
Court rejected that argument after analyzing Section 404(c) and Rule 43. And because Rule 43 did not require his
presence, there was also no due process violation.
The Court distinguished an earlier precedent involving
a re-sentencing proceeding following the grant of a 2255 motion. In so doing, the Court stated that Section
404 is a “limited remedy,” not a plenary or de novo re-sentencing. It authorized a sentencing reduction only for counts that are “covered offenses,”
and it does not permit courts to “change the defendant’s original guidelines
calculations that are unaffected by sections 2 and 3” of the Fair Sentencing
Act or “to reduce the defendant’s sentence on the covered offense based on
changes in the law beyond those mandated by sections 2 and 3.”
