Rutherford v. United States · ¶27

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of Rutherford's motion. See 120 F. 4th 360, 363 (2024). The court acknowledged that Congress had authorized the Commission to issue a policy statement feshing out the meaning of “ `extraordinary and compelling ' ” reasons under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Id., at 375. But that statement, the court said, cannot “go beyond what Congress intended.” Id., at 376. And as the Third Circuit had already explained in An drews, it makes no sense to “ `construe Congress's nonretroactivity directive as simultaneously creating an extraordinary and compelling reason for early release.' ” 120 F. 4th, at 376 (quoting Andrews, 12 F. 4th, at 261). Because the Commission's amended policy statement “conficts with the will of Congress,” the court held, it “cannot be considered in determining a prisoner's eligibility for compassionate release.” 120 F. 4th, at 376.

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