Fernandez v. United States · ¶120

I do not take a position as to whether Fernandez's case meets that threshold. The District Court thought so—it laid out the evidentiary gaps that caused it to have serious doubts about whether Fernandez was involved in the underlying crime at all. See 2022 WL 17039059, *4.Also notable, the District Court based its § 3582(c)(1)(A) ruling on both its “disquiet” about Fernandez's potential innocence and the significant disparity between Fernandez's sentence and his codefendants' sentences. Ibid. But due to the categorical rule the Second Circuit employed, that court did not address whether the District Court erred in concluding that § 3582(c)(1)(A)'s “extraordinary and compelling reasons” threshold was satisfied on these facts. See 104 F. 4th 420, 429–433 (2024). I would vacate the judgment below and remand for the Second Circuit to make that assessment in the first instance.

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