No. 24-6344

Tamir Abdullah v. United States

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-01-21
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: criminal-procedure drug-quantity fair-sentencing-act first-step-act sentencing-range statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference: 2025-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the statute of conviction or a drug quantity in the record determine eligibility for relief under Section 404 of the First Step Act?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Section 404 of the First Step Act made retroactive the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010’s changes to the cocaine -base drug -quantity thresholds in 21 U.S.C. § 841. The majority of the courts of appeals have concluded that eligibility for relief under Section 404 turns on the statute of conviction alone, regardless of the drug quantity involved in the offense. The Eleventh Circu it has held that a defendant is ineligible if a district court’s pre -Apprendi drug -quantity findings would yield the same statutory sentencing range before and after the Fair Sentencing Act’s changes. The panel below adopted the Eleventh Circuit’s minority view, at least in cases where a jury made a special finding regarding drug quantity. The question presented is: does the statute of conviction or a drug quantity in the record determine eligibility for relief under Section 404 of the First Step Act ?

Docket Entries

2025-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
2025-01-27
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-01-27
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-01-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 20, 2025)

Attorneys

Tamir Abdullah
Christian J. GrosticFederal Public Defender, Northern District of Ohio, Petitioner
Christian J. GrosticFederal Public Defender, Northern District of Ohio, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent