No. 22-340

Mark E. Pulsifer v. United States

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-10-12
Status: Judgment Issued
Type: Paid
Amici (4)Relisted (3) Experienced Counsel
Tags: circuit-conflict circuit-split criminal-history criminal-justice-reform first-step-act mandatory-minimum rule-of-lenity safety-valve sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2023-09-26 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the 'and' in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) means 'and' or 'or' for determining eligibility for the federal sentencing 'safety valve

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The “safety valve” provision of the federal sentencing statute requires a district court to ignore any statutory mandatory minimum and instead follow the Sentencing Guidelines if a defendant was convicted of certain nonviolent drug crimes and can meet five sets of criteria. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)-(5). Congress amended the first set of criteria, in § 3553(f)(1), in the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 402, 132 Stat. 5194, 5221, broad criminal justice and sentencing reform legislation designed to provide a second chance for nonviolent offenders. A defendant satisfies § 3553(f)(1), as amended, if he “does not have—(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; (B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and (C) a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) (emphasis added). The question presented is whether the “and” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) means “and,” so that a defendant satisfies the provision so long as he does not have (A) more than 4 criminal history points, (B) a 3-point offense, and (C) a 2-point offense (as the Ninth Circuit holds), or whether the “and” means “or,” so that a defendant satisfies the provision so long as he does not have (A) more than 4 criminal history points, (B) a 3point offense, or (C) a 2-point violent offense (as the Seventh and Eighth Circuits hold).

Docket Entries

2024-08-13
Record returned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
2024-04-16
Judgment Issued.
2024-03-15
Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-340_p86a.pdf'>opinion</a> of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Jackson, JJ., joined.
2023-10-02
Argued. For petitioner: Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
2023-10-02
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel GRANTED. J. Robert Black, of Omaha, Nebraska, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.
2023-08-23
2023-08-16
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-07-27
CIRCULATED
2023-07-24
Brief of respondent United States filed.
2023-07-24
Complete record on appeal received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1 envelope). There are sealed documents with this record.
2023-07-19
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel filed.
2023-07-17
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
2023-07-14
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, October 2, 2023.
2023-05-26
2023-05-26
Brief amici curiae of Professors Thomas R. Lee, et al. in support of neither party filed.
2023-05-26
Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Federal Defenders filed.
2023-05-26
2023-05-22
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
2023-05-19
2023-05-11
Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Mark E. Pulsifer.
2023-04-07
Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 19, 2023. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 24, 2023.
2023-03-21
Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
2023-02-27
Petition GRANTED.
2023-02-22
Supplemental brief of petitioner Mark E. Pulsifer filed. (Distributed)
2023-02-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/24/2023.
2023-02-02
2023-02-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2023-01-13
2022-12-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 13, 2023.
2022-12-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 14, 2022 to January 13, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-11-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 14, 2022.
2022-11-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 14, 2022 to December 14, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-10-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 14, 2022)

Attorneys

Americans for Prosperity Foundation
Michael David PepsonAmericans for Prosperity Foundation, Amicus
Michael David PepsonAmericans for Prosperity Foundation, Amicus
FAMM, American Civil Liberties Union, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
David John DeboldGibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Amicus
David John DeboldGibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Amicus
Mark E. Pulsifer
Shay DvoretzkySkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Petitioner
Shay DvoretzkySkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Petitioner
J. Robert BlackBlack & Weir Law Offices, LLC, Petitioner
J. Robert BlackBlack & Weir Law Offices, LLC, Petitioner
National Association of Federal Defenders
Vincent J. BrunkowFederal Defenders of San Diego, Amicus
Vincent J. BrunkowFederal Defenders of San Diego, Amicus
Professors Thomas R. Lee, Kevin Tobia, and Jesse Egbert
Philip Daniel WilliamsonTaft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Amicus
Philip Daniel WilliamsonTaft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Amicus
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent