Rutherford v. United States · ¶28

Carter's case is similar. After the Commission amended its policy statement, he moved for a reduction under § 3582(c) (1)(A)(i), arguing that his sentence is “unusually long” and that the Act created a “ `gross disparity' ” between his original sentence and the one he would receive under the amended § 924(c). 2 App. in No. 24–1115 (CA3), pp. 206–207. He also pointed to his strong family ties, rehabilitation, and good conduct while incarcerated as additional reasons for a reduction. Bound by Andrews, the District Court denied Carter's motion, and Carter appealed. While the appeal was pending, the Third Circuit decided Rutherford's case. Shortly thereafter, it summarily affirmed the denial of Carter's motion. See 2024 WL 5339852, *1 (Dec. 2, 2024).

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