United States v. Dixon: First Circuit Clarifies Sentencing Reductions Under § 404 of the First Step Act
By Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP
Boston-area Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys
If you or someone you love is serving a federal sentence for a crack cocaine offense imposed before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the recent First Circuit decision in United States v. Dixon, No. 01-119-25 (1st Cir. June 2025), offers important guidance on resentencing eligibility under the First Step Act.
At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we represent individuals in Boston and across Massachusetts in federal criminal cases—from initial investigation through post-conviction relief. This case underscores both the power and limitations of recent federal sentencing reforms—and why having an experienced federal criminal defense attorney is critical when navigating them.
What Was the Issue in United States v. Dixon?
The defendant, Darrell Dixon, was sentenced in 2002 to 360 months in federal prison for multiple federal crack cocaine and firearms charges under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. His sentence included enhancements for possessing a firearm and obstruction of justice. At the time, sentencing laws imposed drastically higher penalties for crack cocaine compared to powder cocaine—an inequity that disproportionately impacted Black defendants.
In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which increased the amount of crack cocaine necessary to trigger mandatory minimum sentences. Then in 2018, the First Step Act made those changes retroactive and allowed defendants like Dixon to seek reduced sentences under Section 404 of that Act.
The central question: Was Dixon eligible for a reduced sentence under the First Step Act even though he was sentenced for multiple offenses—including ones unaffected by the Fair Sentencing Act?
First Step Act Section 404: A Brief Primer
Under Section 404 of the First Step Act:
“A court that imposed a sentence for a covered offense may... impose a reduced sentence as if Sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.”
A "covered offense" is defined as any violation of a federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by Section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act. These modifications chiefly affected 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and (B), which previously required mandatory minimums for possession with intent to distribute 5 or 50 grams of crack cocaine.
Dixon’s Arguments and the Government’s Response
Dixon filed a motion for a reduced sentence under Section 404, arguing that he had been sentenced for a “covered offense”—possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine under § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). Because the Fair Sentencing Act raised the threshold for triggering § 841(b)(1)(A) from 50 to 280 grams, Dixon argued that his offense now fell under § 841(b)(1)(B), making him eligible for a shorter sentence.
The government opposed the motion, arguing:
Dixon’s guideline range was enhanced by firearm and obstruction conduct, not by the crack cocaine quantity alone;
His sentence included other counts, including conspiracy and firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), unaffected by the Fair Sentencing Act;
The court had discretion to deny relief even if he was eligible.
What Did the District Court Do?
The U.S. District Court acknowledged that Dixon was eligible for resentencing under the First Step Act. However, it declined to reduce his sentence. The court reasoned that:
The guideline range would have remained largely unchanged even if Dixon had been sentenced under the new crack thresholds;
Dixon had a lengthy and violent criminal history;
His other convictions (including use of a firearm) independently justified the existing sentence.
First Circuit Affirms: A Cautious Endorsement of Judicial Discretion
On appeal, Dixon challenged the court’s decision not to reduce his sentence. He argued that:
He was entitled to a new sentence, not just eligibility for review;
The district court abused its discretion by giving too much weight to the unchanged guideline range and failing to appreciate the severity of the now-discredited crack/powder disparity.
But the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Writing for the panel, the court held:
"Eligibility under § 404(b) does not guarantee a sentence reduction. The district court must conduct an individualized assessment and has wide discretion in deciding whether to grant relief."
The court emphasized that:
Discretion is key under the First Step Act. Courts are not required to reduce a sentence even if the defendant qualifies;
Judges may consider the full record, including the original sentencing, post-sentencing conduct, and public safety concerns;
The Act does not require plenary resentencing or application of the latest Sentencing Guidelines.
In short: while the First Step Act opens the door, it doesn’t force judges to walk through it.
Why This Case Matters
1. Eligibility ≠ Entitlement
Dixon reinforces that federal judges have broad discretion under the First Step Act. Just because a defendant is eligible for a reduced sentence doesn’t mean a reduction will be granted.
This is crucial for Boston-area defendants seeking post-conviction relief under federal sentencing reforms. The burden is on the defendant—and their lawyer—to make the case that a reduced sentence is appropriate in light of:
Their post-conviction rehabilitation;
The nature of their offense;
The disparity between old and new sentencing frameworks;
Public safety considerations.
At Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, we help clients put forward compelling arguments for sentence reductions.
2. The Role of the Guidelines
Another key takeaway from Dixon is that courts may—but are not required to—consider updated Sentencing Guidelines when reviewing a sentence under Section 404. In Dixon’s case, the court still focused on his original guideline range, noting that other enhancements (e.g., firearms, obstruction) kept it relatively high.
In other words, the crack weight reduction alone might not move the needle unless other parts of the sentence also warrant reconsideration.
This is why a strategic legal approach matters. A skilled federal defense attorney can identify all mitigating factors, from health issues and educational achievements in prison to changes in the law that affect stacked charges or sentencing enhancements.
3. No Need for a Full Resentencing
The court made clear that plenary resentencing is not required under the First Step Act. Judges do not need to reconsider every aspect of the original sentence. They can limit their review to the crack cocaine offense and the surrounding circumstances.
This means defendants cannot use the First Step Act to relitigate unrelated parts of their sentence—unless there are other valid avenues of relief, such as habeas corpus or compassionate release.
What Should Federal Defendants in Massachusetts Do Now?
If you were sentenced in federal court before 2010 for a crack cocaine offense, you may be eligible for relief under the First Step Act. Even if your sentence included other counts or enhancements, Dixon shows that eligibility may still exist—but success depends on how your case is presented.
The attorneys at Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP understand the nuances of post-conviction federal relief. We can:
Determine if your case qualifies for a First Step Act motion;
Analyze your original Presentence Report, sentencing transcript, and criminal history;
Work with you to develop a powerful narrative of rehabilitation and readiness;
File and argue motions in U.S. District Court and, if necessary, on appeal to the First Circuit.
We also assist with other avenues of relief, including:
Compassionate release based on medical conditions or family hardship;
Sentence reductions based on changes in federal law;
Federal habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255;
Executive clemency applications.
Conclusion: Dixon Reinforces the Importance of Federal Sentencing Advocacy
United States v. Dixon reminds us that federal sentencing reform is real—but not automatic. The First Step Act has given thousands of federal defendants a second chance, but the court retains discretion to say no.
That’s why it’s critical to have experienced federal criminal defense lawyers guiding the process.
If you or a loved one is serving a long federal sentence—or if you're facing federal charges in Boston or anywhere in Massachusetts—call the attorneys at Benzaken, Maguire, Sheehan & Wood, LLP. We bring deep experience, sharp advocacy, and relentless commitment to defending your freedom.