Fernandez v. United States · ¶39

Section 2255's reticulated scheme bears on this inquiry. A reason is not “compelling” if Congress has channeled it through the postconviction statutes. Even Fernandez recognizes that an argument may be less compelling if it could have been—and was not—asserted through § 2255. He admits that courts may consider “as part of the extraordinary and compelling analysis” whether a “defendant sat on his rights or whether he's taken all opportunities to enforce his rights.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 15–16. Yet the same is true for § 2255's other substantive and procedural requirements: That Congress has chosen to make § 2255 a high bar is not a compelling reason to reduce the sentences of prisoners who fall short.

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