Whether sentencing disparities between co-conspirators can constitute 'extraordinary and compelling reasons' for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)

No question identified. : 2 enterprise, respondent and his co-conspirators were “responsible for the deaths of two people.” Ibid. Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, respondent was convicted of voluntary manslaughter using a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (1) and (3); aiding and abetting a murder in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1959(a) (1); and various other offenses. App., infra, 3a & n.2. The district court sentenced respondent to “a total of two terms of life imprisonment plus 790 months in prison.” Id. at 3a. The court of appeals affirmed, 219 F.3d 349, and this Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari, 531 U.S. 1024. 2. n 2021, respondent filed a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) (1) (A) (i). App., infra, 4. Section 3582 (c) (1) (A) (i) provides a narrow “except[ion]” to the principle that a federal court generally “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. 3582(c). Under Section 3582(c) (1) (A) (i), a court “may reduce” a prisoner’s “term of imprisonment,” “after considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable,” “if it finds” that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a uv reduction” and that “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. 3582 (c) (1) (A) (i). 3 The district court granted respondent’s Section 3582 (c) (1) (A) (2) motion. C.A. App. 691-722. The court observed that respondent had been sentenced to a longer term of imprisonment than some of his co-conspirators, who had pleaded guilty and cooperated with the government. Id. at 705-708. In the court’s uv view, those “[s]entencing disparities” constituted “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for reducing respondent’s sentence. Id. at 715-716. After considering the Section 3553(a) factors, the court reduced respondent’s total term of imprisonment to 35 years. Id. at 721-722. 3. A divided panel of the court of appeals affirmed. App., infra, la-19a. The court took the view that “there is no exhaustive list as to what may be considered extraordinary and compelling.” Id. at 8a. The court of appeals then concluded that it was “within the district court’s discretion to find” that the “disparity” between respondent’s sentence and his co-conspirators’ sentences “constituted an extraordinary and compelling factor that weighed in favor of granting relief.” Ibid. Judge Niemeyer dissented. App., infra, 10a-19a. In his view, the district court exceeded the “legal limitations imposed by § 3582(c) (1) (A)” in relying on sentencing disparities as the basis for a sentence reduction. Id. at 19a. Judge Niemeyer explained that although “sentencing disparities” may be considered “in imposing the original sentence,” they fall outside the purview of a Section 3582(c) (1) (A) (i) motion, which “does not authorize courts 4 to review an underlying conviction or final sentence.” Id. at 13a. Judge Niemeyer observed that other “courts have uniformly concluded that sentencing disparities * * * are not a ground for granting a motion for [a sentence reduction].” Id. at 14a (emphasis omitted) (citing, inter alia, United States v. Fernandez, 104 F.4th 420, 428 (2d Cir. 2024), cert. granted, 145 S. Ct. 2731 (2025) (No. 24-556)). 4. On September 2, 2025, the Solicitor General authorized the government to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case. The additional time sought in this application is necessary to permit the preparation and printing of the petition, and because the attorneys with principal responsibility for drafting the petition have been heavily engaged with the press of other matters before this Court. Respectfully submitted. D. JOHN SAUER Solicitor General Counsel of Record SEPTEMBER 2025 Court of appeals opinion Court of appeals judgment