No. 21-6224
Relisted (3)IFP
Tags: criminal-justice-reform criminal-resentencing district-court-discretion first-step-act intervening-legal-developments legal-developments retroactivity sentencing sentencing-reduction statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference:
2022-09-28
(distributed 3 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
2022-11-04
Judgment issued.
2022-10-03
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 Concepcion v. United States, 597 U. S. ___ (2022). Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
2022-09-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-06-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2022.
2022-01-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
2022-01-10
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2021-12-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 10, 2022.
2021-12-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 10, 2021 to January 10, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-11-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 10, 2021)
Attorneys
Tony Ford
Adam Labonte — Federal Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent