No. 21-5100
Matthew James Haymond, Sr. v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: crack-cocaine criminal-sentencing drug-offenses fair-sentencing-act first-step-act mandatory-life-sentence mandatory-minimum plea-bargaining retroactive-application sentencing-reduction statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Mr. Haymond was improperly denied First-Step-Act-relief
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW (1) Whether Mr. Haymond was improperly denied First Step Act § 404 relief from his mandatory life sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), where the district court found him “eligible” for a reduction, but not “entitled” to one, since his admissions to more than 280 grams of crack cocaine in plea proceedings meant “he would still be subject to mandatory life in prison” under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), even with benefit of the First Step Act’s retroactive implementation of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA 2010”).
Docket Entries
2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-07-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-07-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2021-07-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 13, 2021)
Attorneys
Matthew Haymond, Sr.
United States of America
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent