Whether the Court should recognize the defense of sentencing manipulation

QUESTION PRESENTED This case arises out of a series of “reverse sting” drug busts in the Southern District of New York. A loosely-supervised DEA informant was told to target people from his criminal life and induce them come to New York to rob fictitious armed drug couriers of a large quantity of cocaine and heroin, a quantity far exceeding that triggering mandatory minima, and to bring guns. In these cases, individuals, including Petitioner, are punished for offenses involving quantities never previously accessible; Petitioner’s criminal history had consisted of small street sales with no previous violent conduct. The jury convicted based on predisposition. the sentencing judge apologized to the defendant for imposing the required sentence -the sentence was greater than necessary. (18 U.S.C. 3553(a)). The question presented is: Whether this Court should recognize the defense of sentencing manipulation, in accordance with the majority of Courts of Appeals, and rule that sentence reductions, even below a mandatory minimum, may and must be granted when the government’s conduct strips the judge of his sentencing authority in order to preserve the separation of powers and the authority of the Judiciary to dispense Due Process, as well as the rights of the defendant to fair sentencing.