Rutherford v. United States · ¶26

While Rutherford's motion was pending, the Third Circuit held that the nonretroactive change to § 924(c) cannot serve as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for compassionate release. See Andrews, 12 F. 4th, at 260–262. The District Court then denied Rutherford's motion, and Rutherford appealed that ruling to the Third Circuit. While his appeal was pending, the Commission amended its policy statement, and Rutherford asked the Court of Appeals to consider the effect of this statement in the first instance.

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