In a 5-3 decision, the US Supreme Court [official website] held [opinion, PDF] Monday that a judge’s explanation for a sentence reduction for drug offenses was adequate because the record indicated that the judge had a reasoned basis for his decision.

The offender pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 135 months’ imprisonment, which at the time was the minimum length under Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Upon a lowering of the sentencing guidelines, in which 135 became the longest recommended sentence, the offender argued he should have a lower sentence. The judge lowered his sentence to 114 months, despite the new lowest recommended of 108 months.

The offender argued his sentence should be “proportional to the point previously chosen in the older higher Guidelines range.” The court said there is no requirement of such a change, affirming the decision [opinion, PDF] of the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit [official website].

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority:

Given the simplicity of this case, the judge’s awareness of the arguments, his consideration of the relevant sentencing factors, and the intuitive reason why he picked a sentence above the very bottom of the new range, the judge’s explanation (minimal as it was) fell within the scope of the lawful professional judgment that the law confers upon the sentencing judge.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch was recused from this case.

Earlier this month, the court held that prison sentences can be reduced [JURIST report] if the Federal Guidelines sentencing range is reduced retroactively if the term sentence is “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.”