Federal court officials in Kansas are going over crack cocaine cases that may require resentencing because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in December and changes in sentencing guidelines made last year.

At least two Douglas County cases are to be reviewed.

“This is only a sentencing matter; it’s not going to change the conviction,” said David Phillips, who oversees federal public defender offices in Kansas.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court sent the cases of Maurice Trotter and his brother, Mardell Trotter, back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th District, which includes Kansas.

In 2005, Maurice Trotter, of Lawrence, was sentenced to 14 years in prison for crimes that included conspiracy to distribute crack in a school zone. His younger brother, Mardell, also of Lawrence, received more than 26 years in prison, including about 21 years for drug dealing and five more for a gun conviction.

The Trotters were convicted of distributing 56 grams of crack cocaine. Under federal law passed in the 1980s during a perceived nationwide crack epidemic, a person convicted of dealing a certain amount of crack would be punished 100 times more seriously than somebody with the same amount of powder cocaine.

In December, the Supreme Court ruled that federal judges have discretion to give “reasonably” shorter prison sentences for crack crimes to reduce the disparity with crimes involving powder cocaine. Earlier in 2007, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reduced its crack sentencing guidelines and eased the 100-to-1 crack-to-powder cocaine ratio. That guideline went into effect Nov. 1 and on March 3 will be applied retroactively, giving thousands of federal inmates a chance at new sentences.

The Trotters’ cases are among more than 200 Kansas federal cases to be reviewed for possible resentencing, Phillips said.

“It’s a fairly major effort trying to determine all of the cases that should be looked at and then trying to determine if there is any relief that could be granted,” Phillips said.

Resentencings will be handled at the U.S. District Court level, not at the appellate level, he said.