Rutherford v. United States · ¶110
This attempt at statutory surgery does not cure the problem. For one thing, § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) does not clearly mandate that the two steps be hermetically sealed off from one another. It specifes only that a court “may reduce [a] term of imprisonment . . . , after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). This text in no way dictates the majority's precise, two-step sequencing in which courts undertake two different inquiries while feigning ignorance of the other. That text just as easily means that courts should decide if there are extraordinary and compelling reasons for relief “after considering” the §3553(a) factors. Indeed, it is obvious, and conceded, that at least some of the § 3553(a) factors are salient at both stages. For…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.