United States v. Melvin Lawrence ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •  United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    Argued May 10, 2021                   Decided June 15, 2021
    No. 20-3061
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    APPELLEE
    v.
    MELVIN LAWRENCE,
    APPELLANT
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Columbia
    (No. 1:03-cr-00092-1)
    William L. Welch, III, appointed by the court, argued the
    cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
    David B. Goodhand, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the
    cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Elizabeth
    Trosman, John P. Mannarino, and Timothy R. Cahill, Assistant
    U.S. Attorneys.
    Before: ROGERS, MILLETT, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
    Opinion for the Court by Circuit Judge MILLETT.
    MILLETT, Circuit Judge: In 2009, the district court
    sentenced Melvin Lawrence to nearly 21 years in prison for
    2
    selling 21.1 grams of crack cocaine. In 2018, Congress enacted
    the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 
    132 Stat. 5194
    ,
    5222, which permits defendants sentenced for certain crack
    offenses before August 3, 2010, to seek sentence reductions
    because of the profound (and disproportionately racial)
    disparity in the law’s prior treatment of crack and powder
    cocaine offenses. Lawrence then filed a motion for sentence
    reduction, but the district court reduced his sentence only by
    the ten months needed to comply with the new statutory
    maximum.
    The sole and narrow question presented in this appeal is
    whether the law mandated that the district court provide
    Lawrence the opportunity to allocute—to speak in person to the
    district court judge—before ruling on his motion for a sentence
    reduction. Because no categorical right to allocute applies to
    motions to reduce a sentence under the First Step Act, we
    affirm the judgment of the district court.
    I
    For nearly 25 years, federal criminal law punished
    offenses involving crack cocaine far more harshly than
    offenses involving powder cocaine. See Anti-Drug Abuse Act
    of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570, § 1002, 
    100 Stat. 3207
    , 3207–2
    to 3207–4; Dorsey v. United States, 
    567 U.S. 260
    , 263–264
    (2012). For instance, the law required a five-year mandatory
    minimum prison sentence for people convicted of possessing
    with the intent to distribute either (i) 500 grams of powder
    cocaine or (ii) 5 grams of crack cocaine—a 100-to-1 disparity.
    Dorsey, 
    567 U.S. at
    263–264. Among other unjust effects, this
    punishment scheme particularly affected Black defendants,
    who constituted the large majority of defendants convicted of
    crack offenses and sentenced to disproportionately long prison
    terms. See U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, 2009 SOURCEBOOK OF
    3
    FEDERAL SENTENCING STATISTICS table 34 (2009), https://
    www.ussc.gov/research/sourcebook/archive/sourcebook-2009
    (showing that in 2009, Black defendants constituted 79 percent
    of defendants convicted of crack cocaine offenses but only 28
    percent of defendants convicted of powder offenses);
    Kimbrough v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 85
    , 98 (2007); United
    States v. White, 
    984 F.3d 76
    , 89–90 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
    After two decades of criticism, see Dorsey, 
    567 U.S. at 268
    , Congress reduced, but did not eliminate, the crack-to-
    powder disparity in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L.
    No. 111-220, 
    124 Stat. 2372
    . See White, 984 F.3d at 81–82
    (“[T]he Fair Sentencing Act * * * reduced the disparity
    between cocaine base and powder cocaine from 100-to-1 to 18-
    to-1.”). As relevant here, the Fair Sentencing Act amended the
    penalties for drug distribution under the Controlled Substances
    Act, 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1), by raising the amount of crack
    cocaine needed to trigger various statutorily mandated
    sentences. See Fair Sentencing Act § 2(a), 124 Stat. at 2372;
    
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(A)(iii), (b)(1)(B)(iii). For example, the
    trigger for a mandatory ten-years-to-life sentencing range was
    raised from 50 grams of crack to 280 grams. Fair Sentencing
    Act § 2(a)(1), 124 Stat. at 2372. And the trigger for a
    mandatory 5-to-40-year sentencing range was raised from 5
    grams of crack to 28 grams. Id. § 2(a)(2), 124 Stat. at 2372. 1
    But the Fair Sentencing Act’s reduced punishments
    applied only prospectively to defendants sentenced after the
    Act’s effective date of August 3, 2010. Dorsey, 
    567 U.S. at
    1
    The Fair Sentencing Act did not change the much higher
    amounts of powder cocaine needed to trigger the same mandatory
    sentences. Those amounts remain at 5 kilograms (for ten-years-to-
    life) and 500 grams (for a 5-to-40 year sentence). See 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(A)(ii), (b)(1)(B)(ii).
    4
    264; White, 984 F.3d at 82. Defendants sentenced prior to that
    date remained subject to their original sentences. 2
    Eight years went by before Congress turned to the
    defendants left serving sentences imposed under the
    disparately more punitive sentencing regime. In Section 404
    of the First Step Act, Congress empowered district courts to
    reduce existing sentences for people convicted of certain crack
    cocaine offenses. See First Step Act § 404, 132 Stat. at 5222;
    
    21 U.S.C. § 841
     note (2019) (“Application of Fair Sentencing
    Act”). Section 404 proceeds in three parts.
    First, Section 404 applies to a “covered offense[,]” which
    means “a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory
    penalties for which were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair
    Sentencing Act of 2010, that was committed before August 3,
    2010.” First Step Act § 404(a), 132 Stat. at 5222 (internal
    citation omitted).
    Second, Section 404 provides that the original sentencing
    court “may,” on motion of the defendant, the government, or
    the court itself, “impose a reduced sentence as if sections 2 and
    3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 were in effect at the time
    2
    After the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act, the Sentencing
    Commission revised the Sentencing Guidelines to “reduc[e] the base
    offense levels for all crack amounts proportionally (using the new
    18-to-1 ratio),” Dorsey, 
    567 U.S. at 276
    , and made those revisions
    retroactive. See U.S. SENT’G GUIDELINES MANUAL app. C, amends.
    750, 759 (2011). While some already-sentenced defendants could
    seek a sentence reduction under those revised Guidelines pursuant to
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2), the new Guidelines did nothing to alter the
    statutory mandatory minimums applicable to defendants sentenced
    prior to August 3, 2010. See United States v. Swangin, 
    726 F.3d 205
    ,
    208 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
    5
    the covered offense was committed.” First Step Act § 404(b),
    132 Stat. at 5222 (internal citation omitted). In that way,
    Section 404 authorizes courts to apply the Fair Sentencing
    Act’s crack-cocaine reforms retroactively. See White, 984 F.3d
    at 82.
    Third, Section 404 sets out certain “[l]imitations” on the
    relief available. First Step Act § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222.
    Courts may not entertain motions under Section 404 if the
    “sentence was previously imposed or previously reduced in
    accordance with” the Fair Sentencing Act. Id. Courts also may
    not entertain renewed motions under Section 404 if a previous
    Section 404 motion was “denied after a complete review of the
    motion on the merits.” Id. And finally, “[n]othing in [Section
    404] shall be construed to require a court to reduce any
    sentence pursuant to [Section 404].” Id.
    In short, Section 404 creates a process through which
    defendants sentenced for a qualifying offense under the prior,
    disparate sentencing regime may seek a sentence reduction,
    which the district court may grant in its discretion.
    The district court’s discretion in adjudicating a
    Section 404 motion is “broad” but not “unfettered[.]” White,
    984 F.3d at 88. The district court’s judgment “must take
    account of Congress’s intent to rectify disproportionate and
    racially disparate sentencing penalties.” Id. at 81. To that end,
    the district court must consider “all relevant factors[,]” id. at
    93, including not only the sentencing factors outlined at 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a), 
    id.
     at 92–93, but potentially also “new
    statutory minimum or maximum penalties; current Guidelines;
    post-sentencing conduct; and other relevant information about
    a defendant’s history and conduct[,]” id. at 90 (quoting United
    States v. Hudson, 
    967 F.3d 605
    , 609 (7th Cir. 2020)). The
    district court must also consider relevant mitigating evidence
    6
    offered by the defendant. 
    Id.
     at 92–93. As with other
    sentencing decisions, see Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51
    (2007), sentence-reduction decisions under Section 404 “must
    be procedurally reasonable and supported by a sufficiently
    compelling justification[,]” White, 984 F.3d at 91 (quoting
    United States v. Boulding, 
    960 F.3d 774
    , 784 (6th Cir. 2020)).
    II
    This is Melvin Lawrence’s third appearance before this
    court.
    A
    In 2003, Lawrence was convicted of unlawful distribution
    of 5 grams or more of cocaine base (crack cocaine) in violation
    of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii), and three charges
    related to possession of drugs and firearms. On appeal, we
    affirmed Lawrence’s conviction on the distribution charge, but
    we reversed his convictions on the three possession charges
    and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Lawrence,
    
    471 F.3d 135
    , 143 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
    On remand, the district court held a new sentencing
    hearing, in which Lawrence allocuted.               Resentencing
    Transcript at 11–12, United States v. Lawrence, No. 03-cr-
    00092-CKK (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2009), ECF No. 103. Lawrence
    told the court that, while incarcerated, he had “been trying to
    do the right things as far as * * * becoming a man so I can
    provide for my son, he’s 11 and very big.” 
    Id.
     Lawrence’s
    mother was “getting old” and does “the best that she can[,]” but
    his son had “health issues as far as * * * weight gain and a lot
    of other things.” Id. at 12. Lawrence explained that he “just
    want[ed] a chance to be a father” to his son, and that he “was
    just hoping that it’s possible that * * * I can get out in his life
    before * * * the streets * * * or anything that maybe I have
    7
    done affect him[.]” Id. He said he wanted to “be a productive
    citizen[,]” and noted that he “read the Bible” and “attended
    church, school, [and] college.” Id. He admitted that he had
    “gotten into some altercations,” but “not because I wanted to,
    but it’s prison, and you know, there’s all types of people in
    prison.” Id. While “making no excuses” for his actions, he
    said he “was just hoping the Court would have leniency” in his
    “particular case.” Id.
    Based on the single crack cocaine distribution conviction
    and the district court finding that Lawrence was a career
    offender, Lawrence’s Sentencing Guidelines range was 262 to
    327 months. In addition, because Lawrence’s offense involved
    21.1 grams of crack, Lawrence was subject to a mandatory
    minimum prison term of five years (60 months) and a statutory
    maximum of 40 years (480 months). See 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(B)(iii) (2009). The district court granted Lawrence
    a downward variance of twelve months based on the court’s
    disagreement with the crack–powder disparity in the
    Guidelines. The court rejected Lawrence’s request for a larger
    downward variance and sentenced him to 250 months of
    imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised
    release.
    We affirmed Lawrence’s sentence in 2011. United States
    v. Lawrence, 
    662 F.3d 551
    , 564 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
    B
    In 2019, following the passage of the First Step Act,
    Lawrence filed a pro se motion in district court requesting that
    his sentence be reduced to time served, which at that time was
    209 months—more than seventeen years. The district court
    appointed counsel for Lawrence, and counsel filed a
    supplemental motion explaining that, in light of the Fair
    Sentencing Act’s amended sentencing ranges, Lawrence’s
    8
    conviction now subjected him only to a 0-to-20-year
    sentencing range rather than the 5-to-40-year range applied at
    his original sentencing. See 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(B), (C).
    The supplemental motion also recalculated Lawrence’s
    Guidelines range as 210 to 262 months of imprisonment. In
    addition, Lawrence argued that time served would be an
    appropriate reduced sentence given his age (50 years old),
    consistent with the sentencing factors outlined at 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a).     Finally, Lawrence’s supplemental motion
    incorporated the arguments from his pro se motion, which, as
    relevant here, had argued that under Section 404, the district
    court had “authority to conduct a full resentencing * * * in the
    defendant’s presence.” J.A. 39, 49.
    The government did not oppose a ten-month reduction in
    Lawrence’s sentence from 250 months to 240 months because
    that was necessary to bring the sentence down to the revised
    statutory maximum of twenty years.          See 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (b)(1)(C). But the government opposed any further
    sentence reduction. The government also argued that Section
    404 proceedings do not require a hearing at which the
    defendant is present.
    The district court granted a sentence reduction to 240
    months imprisonment and three years of supervised release, but
    denied any further reduction in Lawrence’s sentence. It ruled
    first that no hearing with the defendant present was required,
    pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon v. United
    States, 
    560 U.S. 817
     (2010), and Rule 43 of the Federal Rules
    of Criminal Procedure. On the merits, the court ruled that no
    reduction beyond the unopposed adjustment of the sentence
    down to 240 months was warranted. The court pointed to
    Lawrence’s “long criminal history and the danger to public
    safety[,]” as well as his “age, risk of recidivism, and * * * long
    disciplinary record while incarcerated[.]” J.A. 115.
    9
    Lawrence timely appealed.
    III
    We possess appellate jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    ,
    which provides for review of “final decisions” of the district
    court. See United States v. Long, --- F.3d ---, No. 20-3064,
    
    2021 WL 1972245
    , at *5 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 2021); United
    States v. Jones, 
    846 F.3d 366
    , 369 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (“Denials
    of sentence reductions are unquestionably ‘final decisions of a
    district court’ because they close the criminal cases once
    again.”) (brackets omitted).
    IV
    Lawrence argues that the district court “should have
    allowed Mr. Lawrence to speak in allocution” and address the
    court personally before his sentence was imposed. Lawrence
    Br. 7. This court has not decided whether a district court’s
    failure to provide allocution is subject to harmless error review.
    See United States v. Abney, 
    957 F.3d 241
    , 247 (D.C. Cir. 2020)
    (noting that this court “ha[s] not weighed in on the review
    framework”). But see also id. at 254 (“Given the importance
    of the allocution right, there may be few, if any, cases in which
    its unremedied denial would not undermine the fairness of the
    judicial process.”). We do not reach that question today
    because Lawrence has failed to demonstrate that any error—
    harmless or not—occurred. Simply put, Lawrence was not
    categorically entitled to an opportunity for allocution as part of
    his Section 404 proceedings under the First Step Act, and he
    10
    has made no claim that allocution was necessary in the
    particular circumstances of his case. 3
    A
    Once a federal criminal sentence is imposed, it is generally
    considered final. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (b); see also 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    . Nonetheless, 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c) sets out three
    circumstances in which a lawfully imposed term of
    imprisonment may be modified. First, certain prisoners may
    be granted compassionate release due to their advanced age or
    for other “extraordinary and compelling reasons[.]” 
    Id.
    § 3582(c)(1)(A); Long, 
    2021 WL 1972245
    , at *1. Second,
    prison terms can be modified “to the extent otherwise expressly
    permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of
    Criminal Procedure[.]” 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(B). And third,
    courts can entertain motions to reduce prison terms if the
    applicable sentencing range for the defendant has been lowered
    by the Sentencing Commission. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2);
    Dillon, 
    560 U.S. at
    824–825.
    This case implicates the second of those three exceptions.
    In the First Step Act, Congress provided authority for courts to
    reduce sentences already imposed. So reductions under the Act
    fall within 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(B)’s exception for sentence
    modifications “expressly permitted by statute[.]” See United
    States v. Concepcion, 
    991 F.3d 279
    , 287 (1st Cir. 2021); United
    3
    Lawrence also argues that “he is not a ‘Career Offender.’”
    Lawrence Br. 15. Because the argument is conclusory and fails to
    provide any legal or factual support for the court to consider, we
    reject that claim. He also suggests in his reply brief that the district
    court erred by failing to “consider disparity” in Lawrence’s sentence.
    Reply Br. 5–6. But arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief
    are forfeited. United States v. Powers, 
    885 F.3d 728
    , 734 (D.C. Cir.
    2018).
    11
    States v. Denson, 
    963 F.3d 1080
    , 1087 (11th Cir. 2020); United
    States v. Moore, 
    975 F.3d 84
    , 89 (2d Cir. 2020); United States
    v. Wirsing, 
    943 F.3d 175
    , 184 (4th Cir. 2019); see also United
    States v. Sutton, 
    962 F.3d 979
    , 985 (7th Cir. 2020) (Section
    3582 “removes a potential obstacle to relief otherwise
    authorized” by the First Step Act.).
    B
    Allocution is the “right * * * to address the sentencing
    judge before imposition of a sentence.” Abney, 957 F.3d at
    249; see United States v. Roberts, 
    570 F.2d 999
    , 1010 (D.C.
    Cir. 1977). This right is “deeply rooted in our legal tradition[,]”
    and “serves several interrelated purposes, including eliciting
    information relevant to mitigation or mercy, demonstrating to
    the public that the courts treat criminal defendants in an
    individualized, fair, and openminded manner, and simply
    acknowledging the defendant’s humanity.” Abney, 957 F.3d at
    250.
    The right of allocution before the imposition of a criminal
    sentence following conviction is now “codified in the Federal
    Rules of Criminal Procedure[.]” Abney, 957 F.3d at 249;
    accord United States v. Behrens, 
    375 U.S. 162
    , 165 (1963);
    Green v. United States, 
    365 U.S. 301
    , 304 (1961); Couch v.
    United States, 
    235 F.2d 519
    , 523–524 (D.C. Cir. 1956).
    Specifically, Rule 32 requires the district court, before
    imposing a sentence, to “address the defendant personally in
    order to permit the defendant to speak or present any
    information to mitigate the sentence[.]” FED. R. CRIM. P.
    32(i)(4)(A)(ii).
    The problem for Lawrence, however, is that Federal Rule
    of Criminal Procedure 43 is explicit that the right of allocution
    does not apply to a sentence-reduction proceeding conducted
    after a sentence has formally been imposed. More specifically,
    12
    Rule 43 provides that the general requirement that a defendant
    be “present” at “sentencing” does not apply to a proceeding
    involving “the correction or reduction of [a] sentence under
    * * * 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c).” FED. R. CRIM. P. 43(b)(4). And
    Section 3582(c)—specifically, Section 3582(c)(1)(B)—is the
    vehicle by which Lawrence is able to press his motion for First
    Step Act relief. See Wirsing, 943 F.3d at 183. 4
    Nothing in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(B) provides a
    categorical right to allocution either. As relevant here, that
    provision states simply that a court “may modify an imposed
    term of imprisonment to the extent otherwise expressly
    permitted by statute[.]” 
    Id.
     On its face, all this provision does
    is reconcile sentence modification statutes like the First Step
    Act with the criminal law’s general rule of sentence finality.
    Section 404 of the First Step Act is similarly of no help to
    Lawrence’s allocution argument. It says only that courts may
    reduce sentences for defendants convicted of certain crack
    offenses “on motion” of the defendant, the government, or the
    court “as if section 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010
    were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.”
    First Step Act § 404(b), 132 Stat. at 5222 (internal citation
    omitted). Nothing in the text or structure of Section 404,
    however, categorically requires that district courts provide an
    opportunity for the defendant to allocute before ruling on such
    a motion.
    4
    A Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure is “as binding as any
    statute duly enacted by Congress, and federal courts have no more
    discretion to disregard the Rule’s mandate than they do to disregard
    constitutional or statutory provisions.” Bank of N.S. v. United States,
    
    487 U.S. 250
    , 255 (1988); see 
    28 U.S.C. § 2072
     (“All laws in conflict
    with such rules shall be of no further force or effect[.]”).
    13
    That is not to say that district courts do not have weighty
    obligations in conducting Section 404 proceedings. For
    starters, the court’s resolution of the motion for sentence
    reduction must “take into account Congress’s purposes” in
    passing the Fair Sentencing Act and the First Step Act, which
    “together[] are strong remedial statutes, meant to rectify
    disproportionate and racially disparate sentencing penalties.”
    White, 984 F.3d at 89–90. In that regard, district courts must
    consider “all relevant factors,” including “new statutory
    minimum or maximum penalties; current Guidelines; post-
    sentencing conduct; and other relevant information about a
    defendant’s history and conduct.” Id. at 90, 93 (quoting
    Hudson, 967 F.3d at 609). In White, we emphasized the
    particular relevance of post-sentencing conduct and the
    sentencing factors listed in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a). 984 F.3d at
    90–91.      Additionally, district courts must give due
    consideration to relevant mitigating evidence offered by the
    defendant. Id. at 92–93. And sentence-reduction decisions
    under Section 404 “must be procedurally reasonable and
    supported by a sufficiently compelling justification.” Id. at 91
    (quoting Boulding, 960 F.3d at 784).
    But nothing in those duties includes a categorical
    requirement that defendants, who presumptively already
    allocuted at their original sentencing, be afforded the
    opportunity to allocute again.
    C
    On appeal, Lawrence invokes the common law and
    Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 as sources for his
    14
    asserted right to allocute. See Lawrence Br. 9–10; Reply Br.
    8–9. 5
    The short answer is that Federal Rule of Criminal
    Procedure 43 expressly carves sentence-reduction proceedings
    like this out of Rule 32’s compass. Under Federal Rule of
    Criminal Procedure 43, a defendant by law need not even be
    present at a Section 404 sentence-reduction proceeding. FED.
    R. CRIM. P. 43(b)(4) (“A defendant need not be present
    * * * [when] [t]he proceeding involves the correction or
    reduction of sentence under * * * 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c).”). That
    necessarily means that defendants do not possess a categorical
    right to be present to allocute at such proceedings. See United
    States v. Mannie, 
    971 F.3d 1145
    , 1156 (10th Cir. 2020); cf.
    Dillon, 
    560 U.S. at 828
     (“Rule 43 therefore sets the
    proceedings authorized by § 3582(c)(2) * * * apart from other
    sentencing proceedings.”).
    To that same point, the common law and Rule 32 right to
    address the court in allocution applies “before the sentence is
    imposed[.]” Abney, 957 F.3d at 250; see FED. R. CRIM. P.
    32(i)(4)(A)(ii) (court must afford right to allocute “[b]efore
    imposing sentence”).       Lawrence already exercised that
    allocution right when his sentence was imposed in 2009.
    Nothing in the common law or Rule 32 requires a second
    opportunity for allocution in a Section 404 proceeding that just
    considers reducing that already-imposed sentence. See Long,
    
    2021 WL 1972245
    , at *5 (“[B]y definition, a sentence must
    already have been imposed before a sentence-modification rule
    may be invoked and a sentence reduction contemplated.”)
    5
    Lawrence does not assert any constitutional right to allocution.
    His briefs invoke only a right of allocution “grounded in the common
    law.” Lawrence Br. 9.
    15
    (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v.
    McAndrews, 
    12 F.3d 273
    , 277 (1st Cir. 1993)).
    If Lawrence means to equate a Section 404 proceeding
    with an original sentencing and all of its requirements, he is
    mistaken. While a Section 404 proceeding is a weighty one, it
    differs meaningfully from an original sentencing.
    Most notably, the district court in a Section 404
    proceeding has no authority to increase a defendant’s sentence.
    The proceeding will either benefit the defendant or leave him
    with the same sentence already imposed (and for which he
    already had the right and opportunity to allocute). First Step
    Act § 404(b), 132 Stat. at 5222 (district court may impose only
    “a reduced sentence” or leave the sentence unchanged). So
    unlike an original sentencing, a Section 404 proceeding cannot
    result in any additional deprivation of liberty. Instead, by the
    time of the First Step Act proceeding, “the purpose of
    allocution—to allow the defendant the opportunity to challenge
    the information the original sentencing judge will rely upon as
    well as to present evidence in mitigation—has already been
    accomplished.” United States v. Jackson, 
    923 F.2d 1494
    , 1498
    (11th Cir. 1991); see Mannie, 971 F.3d at 1156 (“We do not
    disagree * * * as to the importance of the defendant’s right of
    allocution at his initial sentencing; but this is a sentence
    modification, not an initial sentencing. There are significant
    differences between the two.”) (footnote omitted).
    In addition, the Supreme Court ruled in Dillon that a
    similar sentence-reduction proceeding “[b]y its terms * * *
    does not authorize a sentencing or resentencing proceeding[,]”
    but instead “provides for the ‘modification of a term of
    imprisonment’ by giving courts the power to ‘reduce’ an
    otherwise final sentence[.]” 
    560 U.S. at 825
     (brackets
    omitted). In Dillon, the Court was analyzing Section
    16
    3582(c)(2)—which          immediately        follows    Section
    3582(c)(1)(B), the provision at issue here. Subsection (c)(2)
    permits district courts to reduce a prison term for a defendant
    “who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a
    sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
    Sentencing Commission[.]” 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2). The
    Court held that, even though proceedings under Section
    3582(c)(2) involve consideration of the Section 3553(a)
    sentencing factors, a district court resolving such a motion for
    sentence reduction “does not impose a new sentence in the
    usual sense.” Dillon, 
    560 U.S. at 827
    .
    The exact same rationale applies here. While the district
    court may “impose” a different sentence in a Section 404
    proceeding, First Step Act § 404(b), 132 Stat. at 5222, it does
    not do so “in the usual sense[,]” Dillon, 
    560 U.S. at 827
    .
    Instead, Section 404 authorizes a special type of post-
    sentencing proceeding in which the district court must
    undertake a distinct analysis to determine whether, as a matter
    of discretion, an already-imposed sentence should be reduced,
    with an eye towards “provid[ing] a remedy for defendants who
    bore the brunt of a racially disparate sentencing scheme.”
    White, 984 F.3d at 91. While the court considers the Section
    3553(a) sentencing factors, it does so for that different statutory
    purpose.
    And importantly, for purposes of the issue in this case,
    nothing in the text of Section 3582(c)(1)(B) meaningfully
    differentiates it from Section 3582(c)(2)—the provision at
    issue in Dillon. Section 3582(c)(1)(B) empowers courts to
    “modify an imposed term of imprisonment,” and Section
    3582(c)(2) permits courts to “reduce the term of
    imprisonment[.]” Neither provision contemplates a complete
    do-over of the sentencing process with a mandatory new
    opportunity for allocution.
    17
    In sum, nothing in Section 404 of the First Step Act, the
    sentence modification provision of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(B),
    the common law, or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
    supports Lawrence’s proposed categorical right to allocution in
    Section 404 sentence-reduction proceedings. We hold that
    there is no such right.
    D
    Of course, even though defendants do not possess a
    categorical right to allocute as part of a Section 404
    proceeding, district courts may choose to allow allocution as
    an exercise of their reasoned discretion. And nothing in our
    holding addresses whether, in the circumstances of a particular
    case, allocution might be warranted or required. That is
    because Lawrence has not made any as-applied claim of a right
    to allocute. Nor could his counsel, at oral argument, provide
    any reason why a new opportunity for allocution would have
    been uniquely useful or appropriate in this case. See Transcript
    of Oral Argument at 8–9. The only question in this case is
    whether an absolute right to allocute exists, and the district
    court correctly ruled that no such right applies here.
    *****
    Section 404 of the First Step Act “makes possible the
    fashioning of the most complete relief possible” to address a
    serious problem of disproportionate and racially inequitable
    sentencing law. White, 984 F.3d at 90 (brackets omitted)
    (quoting Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 
    422 U.S. 405
    , 421
    (1975)). “This is no small matter.” White, 984 F.3d at 90. But
    neither the statute’s text nor its remedial purpose requires that
    the defendant in every case be given a new opportunity for
    allocution.
    18
    For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of
    the district court.
    So ordered.