Concepcion v. United States
2022 United States Supreme Court case
Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481 (2022), is a United States Supreme Court decision that concerns district courts' ability to consider changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence.
Background
In 2006, Carlos Concepcion was arrested on felony drug charges for an illegal sale of cocaine. He pleaded guilty to the distribution of five grams of crack cocaine in 2008. His penalty carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison but with his previous criminal conviction, the mandatory minimum sentence was elevated to ten years. Ultimately, he was subsequently sentenced to 19 years' imprisonment.
In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which increased the minimum threshold for the mandatory minimum sentence to be triggered to twenty-eight grams of crack cocaine. But because the Fair Sentencing Act didn't apply retroactively, his sentence remained the same. However, in 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act, which allowed for the Fair Sentencing Act's sentence reduction to apply retroactively and granted discretion to district courts to "impose or withhold" reducing a sentence. Subsequently, Concepcion filed a motion for sentence reduction due to Section 404(b) of the First Step Act.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Concepcion v. United States” is 2022 United States Supreme Court case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Concepcion, United and States, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “2022 United States Supreme Court case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 1, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q113039634. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2022, 2006, 2008 and 2010.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Concepcion v. United States”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Concepcion v. United States primary sources, Concepcion v. United States archive and Concepcion research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Concepcion v. United States”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Concepcion v. United States” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.