No. 21-7368
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: criminal-justice-reform district-court-discretion first-step-act intervening-legal-developments legal-developments retroactivity sentencing sentencing-reduction statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-06-29
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether, when deciding if it should "impose a reduced sentence"
on an individual under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, a
district court must or may consider intervening legal developments.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a district court must or may consider intervening legal developments when deciding whether to impose a reduced sentence under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018
Docket Entries
2022-08-01
JUDGMENT ISSUED
2022-06-30
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of <i>Concepcion</i> v. <i>United States</i>, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).
2022-06-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2022.
2022-05-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/19/2022.
2022-04-14
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2022-03-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 14, 2022)
Attorneys
Antwan Boyd
Adam Labonte — Federal Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent