In December 2024, the Commission requested comment on the criteria for selecting retroactive guideline amendments. The Background Commentary to §1B1.10 (Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)) provides a non-exhaustive list of criteria the Commission typically considers in selecting the amendments to be included in §1B1.10(d) for retractive application: “the purpose of the amendment, the magnitude of the change in the guideline range made by the amendment, and the difficulty of applying the amendment retroactively to determine an amended guideline range under subsection (b)(1).” USSG §1B1.10, comment. (backg’d.). This non-exhaustive list of criteria has remained substantively unchanged since the Commission originally promulgated the policy statement at §1B1.10 in 1989.

 Issues for Comment:

1. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should provide further guidance on how the existing criteria for determining whether an amendment should apply retroactively are applied. If so, what should that guidance be? Should it revise or expand the criteria? Are there additional criteria that the Commission should consider beyond those listed in the existing Background Commentary to §1B1.10? Are there identifiable sources that the Commission should consult that highlight retroactivity criteria relied upon by other legislative or rulemaking bodies? If the Commission continues to list criteria relevant to determining whether an amendment should apply retroactively, should it adopt any bright-line rules? Is there a different approach that the Commission should consider for these purposes?
2. The Commission seeks comment on whether any listed criteria are more appropriately addressed in the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure rather than the Background Commentary to §1B1.10.
3. Rule 4.1A (Retroactive Application of Amendments) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure provides “[g]enerally, promulgated amendments will be given prospective application only.” The Commission seeks comment on whether if should retain this provision. If so, how should the Commission ensure that any listed criteria reflect this provision?