Rutherford v. United States · ¶109

Even the Government agrees that individualized analysis is consistent with Congress's intent at least at one step of the compassionate-release analysis. Once a defendant establishes extraordinary and compelling reasons, the Government concedes that courts may consider a sentencing disparity created by nonretroactive changes in law when weighing the § 3553(a) factors to decide how much to reduce a defendant's sentence. See Brief for United States 37; see also 18 U. S. C. §3553(a)(6) (listing “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities” as one factor the court “shall consider”). The majority maintains that considering sentencing disparities is impermissible at the first step because it is a “distinct analytical step that imposes independent and ascertainable limits on access to compassionate release.” Ante, at 470.

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