Chair Carlton W. Reeves opened the United States Sentencing Commission hearing saying the panel would decide whether recent guideline amendments “should be applied retroactively,” and invited testimony on the acquitted‑conduct amendment.

The commission heard sustained, opposing views about retroactivity for the acquitted‑conduct change. Defense practitioners and advisory groups told the commission the amendment corrects a fundamental fairness problem and should apply to people already serving sentences; probation officers and the victims advisory group warned the record‑review burden and victims’ rights implications counsel against retroactivity.

Adeel Bashir, attorney with the Federal Public and Community Defenders Sentencing Resource Council, argued the amendment “strongly favors retroactive application,” saying the practice of using acquitted conduct at sentencing “has been described as perverse, defying common sense, and fundamentally unfair.” He told commissioners that prior rounds of retroactivity produced fewer filings than forecasts and that defenders nationwide are preparing to identify eligible clients if the commission grants retroactivity. “There will no doubt be some instances where there are some nuanced cases that we have to roll up our sleeves,” Bashir said, but he added that those instances are “no reason to avoid retroactivity.”

Patrick F. Nash, vice chair of the commission’s Practitioners Advisory Group, repeated the practitioners’ unanimous recommendation for retroactivity on fairness grounds and invoked cases where judges imposed sentences “as though the jury had found [a defendant] guilty.” Nash said those outcomes “should have the opportunity for a potential sentence reduction.”

Witnesses from advisory groups and defenders said the universe of potentially eligible defendants is small—far smaller than some earlier retroactivity estimates for other amendments—and that much of the heavy lifting falls to defense counsel at the triage stage. Manny Atwal, first assistant federal defender for the District of Minnesota and a member of the Tribal Issues Advisory Group, described local practices that screen dockets, notify clients, and coordinate with probation and U.S. Attorney offices to file joint recommendations where possible.

By contrast, Jill Bouchaw, deputy chief U.S. probation officer and chair of the Probation Officers Advisory Group, urged the commission not to make the amendment retroactive. She said “determining how the case was impacted is far from a simple process,” that relevant facts often are not captured in routine court records or PSRs and that applying the revision could require review of sentencing transcripts and new factfinding in many cases. Bouchaw added that because relevant conduct under the Guidelines touches nearly every scoring element, retroactive application “would effectively resemble a full resentencing.”

Mary Grama Leary, chair of the Victims Advisory Group and professor at Catholic University of America, said retroactivity would risk retraumatizing victims because 18 U.S.C. §3771 and related notice and participation rights attach to reopening a matter that involved death or other serious harm. Several commissioners asked about likely filing volumes; defenders replied that practical experience from past amendments shows fewer filings than early estimates and that local triage systems make processing manageable.

Commissioners and panelists also debated legal standards. Witnesses referenced the Sentencing Reform Act and the Commission’s rule 1B1.10 as the governing framework for retroactivity decisions; defenders argued that the amendment aligns with statutory principles and past retroactivity decisions, while opponents pointed to the statutory preference for prospective application and the absence of precise national data on the amendment’s effect.

The hearing record included repeated testimony that stakeholders will continue coordinating after the hearing if the commission votes to make the change retroactive. Commissioners said they would consider all submitted written comments and the testimony before voting.

Ending: The commission recessed the panel after hearing testimony and questions and reminded the public the written comments and hearing transcripts are posted on the commission website.