No. 21-7270
IFP
Tags: circuit-split criminal-justice-reform criminal-procedure first-step-act legal-developments retroactivity sentencing sentencing-reduction statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2022-06-02
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
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented here is the same as that presented in Concepcion v. United States, No. 20-1650, currently pending for decision by this Court: 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. 1
Docket Entries
2022-06-06
Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2022-05-19
Reply of petitioner Karo Brown filed. (Distributed)
2022-05-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/2/2022.
2022-05-04
Memorandum of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2022-03-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 4, 2022.
2022-03-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 4, 2022 to May 4, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-03-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 4, 2022)
Attorneys
Karo Brown
Lisa A. Peebles — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Molly K Corbett — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent