Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Harry Whitman v. United States

IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 25-20035 · judgment November 10, 2025


Certiorari denied · June 8, 2026

Question presented

In 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), Congress authorized courts to reduce a federal prisoner’s otherwise final sentence for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” Congress did not define that phrase and placed a single limitation on its scope: “[r]ehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.” 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). Congress also directed the Sentencing Commission the issue policy statements reflecting the Commission’s “view” as to the “appropriate use of” Section 3582(c)’s modification authority—to include “descri[ptions of] what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a reduction, as well as the “criteria to be applied and a list of specific examples.” Id. § 994(a)(2), (t). In the First Step Act of 2018, Congress amended 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) to eliminate, on a prospective only basis, an entire category of mandatory punishment: “stacked” sentences for multiple first-time Section 924(c) offenses. Individuals sentenced prior to the Act’s effective date thus remained subject to “stacked” prison terms that are decades-longer than the terms they would face today for the exact same conduct. The courts of appeals have since openly split over whether a sentencing disparity produced by an intervening, nonretroactive change in law—like the FSA’s anti-“stacking” amendment—may contribute to a finding that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” exist to grant a Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) reduction. In 2023, the Sentencing Commission updated its relevant policy statement to permit courts to consider such disparities as among the reasons for granting a reduction, though only in specific and defined circumstances. USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6), (c). The question presented is: Whether the fact that a prisoner is serving a sentence that is significantly longer than the law would now permit, in light of the First Step Act’s nonretroactive changes to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), may contribute to a finding that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Evan Gray Howze
Federal Public Defender

For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General

Case

Subject area
Criminal Procedure (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Order
Order list, June 8, 2026 · Certiorari denied

Proceedings

  1. Jun 08 2026
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jun 01 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/4/2026.
  3. Apr 02 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2026.
  4. Mar 19 2026
    Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
  5. Feb 17 2026
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 19, 2026.
  6. Feb 13 2026
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 17, 2026 to March 19, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
  7. Jan 13 2026
    Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 17, 2026)