No. 22-7059

Aaron M. Haynes v. United States

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-03-21
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: circuit-split criminal-history-points criminal-justice federal-sentencing first-step-act mandatory-minimum safety-valve sentencing-guidelines sentencing-reform statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2024-03-22 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the 'and' in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) means 'and' or 'or'

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, 132Stat. 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((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 Fourth and Ninth and Eleventh Circuits Hold), 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 3-point offense, or (C) a 2-point violent offense (as the Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits hold). i

Docket Entries

2024-03-25
Petition DENIED.
2024-03-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2024.
2023-05-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/25/2023.
2023-04-20
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2023-03-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 20, 2023)

Attorneys

Aaron M. Haynes
Rachel Leanne WolfLaw Office of Rachel Wolf, Petitioner
Rachel Leanne WolfLaw Office of Rachel Wolf, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent