No. 19-8235
Justin K. Eaton v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: beckles-v-us braxton-v-us constitutional-challenge dillon-v-us judicial-review retroactive-effect sentencing-commission sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-05-15
Question Presented (from Petition)
(1). Since the Sentencing Commission is to serve a similar function to interpreting guidelines as this Court does in interpreting statutes under Braxton v U.S., 500 US 344 (1991) must its interpretations be given retroactive effect as well?
(2). Do Dillon v U.S., 562 US 817 (2010) and Beckles v U.S., 197 LED 2d 145 (2017) allow a §3582 petitioner to raise constitutional challenges to the decision to make or not to make an amendment retroactive?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Sentencing Commission's interpretations of the sentencing guidelines must be given retroactive effect
Docket Entries
2020-05-18
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2020.
2020-04-16
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-02-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 11, 2020)
Attorneys
Justin K. Eaton
Justin K. Eaton — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent