No. 21-877
Tags: 18-usc-3582c1a 18-usc-924c circuit-split criminal-law criminal-sentencing extraordinary-and-compelling-reasons federal-procedure first-step-act sentencing-reduction statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-03-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a district court may consider the 2018 amendment to the sentences mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in determining whether a defendant has shown 'extraordinary and compelling reasons' warranting a sentence reduction under 18U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1(A)(@)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a district court may consider the 2018 amendment to the sentences mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in determining whether a defendant has shown “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sentence reduction under 18U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1(A)(@).
Docket Entries
2022-03-21
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022.
2022-02-28
Reply of petitioner Ross Thacker filed. (Distributed)
2022-02-14
Memorandum of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2022-01-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 14, 2022.
2022-01-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 13, 2022 to February 14, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-12-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 13, 2022)
Attorneys
Ross Thacker
John Gleeson — Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Petitioner
John Gleeson — Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent