Fernandez v. United States · ¶112

Perhaps even more troubling than the lack of support for today's holding is the uncertainty this case will create moving forward. That uncertainty results, in part, from the majority's backwards reasoning: It starts with the premise that Fernandez is functionally attempting to use § 3582(c)(1)(A) to attack his conviction collaterally and, from there, concludes that § 2255 must prevent this sort of end-run around the strict process for habeas relief. But that reasoning rests on the unfounded assumption that Fernandez is essentially seeking to have his conviction vacated rather than his sentence shortened. Those are two completely different asks. And the majority's reasoning also merely assumes that they are incompatible.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.