No. 19-6663

Jose Hernandez-Martinez, et al. v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-11-18
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: 18-usc-3553a 18-usc-3582c2 28-usc-991b 28-usc-994 due-process equal-protection guidelines-policy rational-basis-scrutiny retroactive-amendment retroactive-sentence-reduction sentence-reduction sentencing-commission sentencing-commission-authority sentencing-reform-act
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2020-01-10
Question Presented (from Petition)

Is the Sentencing Commission's delegated authority over retroactive sentence reduction proceedings constrained by the general purposes of the Commission and the aims of sentencing as set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 28 U.S.C. § 991(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 994?

Under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause, does the exclusion of defendants who established grounds for variance or departure at their original sentencings from eligibility for sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) fail rational basis scrutiny because the discrimination neither furthers nor is connected in scope to a legitimate government purpose?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is the Sentencing Commission's delegated authority over retroactive sentence reduction proceedings constrained by the general purposes of the Commission and the aims of sentencing as set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 28 U.S.C. § 991(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 994?

Docket Entries

2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-11-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 18, 2019)

Attorneys

Jose Hernandez-Martinez, et al.
Stephen Reese SadyOregon Federal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent