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 (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 FOR REVIEW The question presented here is the same as that presented in Concepcion v. United States, No. 20-1650, on which this Court recently granted certiorari: 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. i
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