Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Jerry L. Brown v. United States
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 22-2465 · judgment April 28, 2023
Before the decision, about 4× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition).
Question presented
This case presents a clear, recognized, and intractable circuit conflict regarding an important issue related to the implementation of the First Step Act of 2018. The First Step Act of 2018, for the first time, permitted prisoners to move for a sentence reduction under what is informally known as the “compassionate release” statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Act also made transformative reductions in the minimum statutory penalties for certain crimes. See First Step Act, 132 Stat. 5220, § 401.2. Relevant here, the Act reduced the mandatory minimum sentence for petitioner’s crime of conviction from life without parole to 25 years. To be eligible for a resentencing under § 3582(c)(1)(A), a prisoner must establish that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant it. Petitioner sought resentencing on the basis of the First Step Act’s non-retroactive change in the penalty for his crime. The trial court denied the motion, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The panel acknowledged the entrenched 4-6 circuit split, but declared itself bound by Seventh Circuit precedent dictating that non-retroactive changes in law categorically cannot be “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a resentencing. That holding was outcome-determinative, and this case is a perfect vehicle for resolving the conflict over this important question. This case is an especially appropriate vehicle to resolve this question because the law in six circuits— including the Seventh—conflicts with a Sentencing Commission Guideline, set to take effect on November 1, under which petitioner is eligible for resentencing. The question presented is: Whether non-retroactive changes in law can be “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting resentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (i)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Andrew Timothy Tutt
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
For respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Oct 02 2023Petition DENIED.
- Aug 09 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
- Aug 03 2023Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- Jul 27 2023Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 30, 2023)