Fernandez v. United States · ¶72
The statutory context confirms the absence of any type- based restriction on the sentence-modification authority § 3582(c)(1)(A) conveys, much less the majority's preferred habeas limit. With full awareness of § 2255, Congress placed only two textual limitations on what constitutes an “extraordinary and compelling reason” to modify a defendant's sentence. First, the resulting sentence reduction must be “consistent” with the Sentencing Commission's policy statements. 18 U. S. C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Second, “[r]ehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason” for a sentence reduction. 28 U. S. C. § 994(t). Far from connoting an additional habeas-based constraint, Congress's express inclusion of these two restrictions on a district court's “extraordinary and compelling” findings “ `implies the exclusion of othe[r]' ” such limitations.…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.