Fernandez v. United States · ¶36

We will not set § 3582 and § 2255 at cross-purposes when we can construe them “in harmony.” District Attorney's Offce, 557 U. S., at 66. Congress made compassionate release available only when “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justify it. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). That is a demanding standard. And as we did with § 1983 in Preiser and Rule 60(b) in Gonzalez, we interpret § 3582 against the backdrop of the detailed process that Congress “explicitly and historically designed” for “attack[ing] the validity of [a prisoner's] confinement.” Preiser, 411 U. S., at 489; see also Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U. S. 465, 473 (2023). Seen in that light, the supposed invalidity of a conviction is not among the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that justify compassionate release.

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