Rutherford v. United States · ¶3
Held: When Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive—as with the change to § 924(c)—the resulting sentencing disparity cannot serve as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason that warrants a sentence reduction under 18 U. S. C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Pp. 465–473. (a) The plain text of § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) empowers a district court to “reduce the term of imprisonment” if it finds, among other things, that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Under the ordinary meaning of the terms, “extraordinary and compelling” reasons are those that are especially unusual and convincing. The disparity created by Congress's amendment to § 924(c) does not satisfy this definition. Far from “extraordinary,” nonretroactive amendments to criminal penalties are the norm. Changes to statutory penalties usually benefit only future offenders. When…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.