Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a district court must first determine whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction" as a threshold eligibility inquiry, as multiple Circuits have held, or whether a district court can deny a motion for a reduced sentence without resolving this issue at all, but instead by finding that the applicable sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) do not warrant a reduced sentence, as the Tenth Circuit held below.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court must first determine whether 'extraordinary-and-compelling-reasons' warrant such a reduction as a threshold eligibility inquiry, or whether a district court can deny a motion for a reduced sentence without resolving this issue at all, but instead by finding that the applicable-sentencing-factors in 18-U.S.C.-§-3553(a) do not warrant a reduced sentence
2022-05-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/19/2022.
2022-05-03
Reply of petitioner James Hald, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2022-04-15
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2022-03-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 15, 2022.
2022-03-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 16, 2022 to April 15, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-02-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 16, 2022.
2022-02-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 14, 2022 to March 16, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-13
Response Requested. (Due February 14, 2022)
2022-01-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022.
2021-12-30
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-12-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 14, 2022)