Rutherford v. United States · ¶35

As for “compelling”: It is hard to see how Congress's deliberate decision not to extend newly reduced penalties to those already sentenced could be a convincing reason that “warrant[s]” a reduction. 18 U. S. C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). As we have explained, Congress decided to apply the lower prison sentences to some violators of § 924(c)—those for whom a sentence had not yet been imposed—but not others. § 403(b), 132 Stat. 5222. In doing so, Congress “reinforced its interest in finality and avoided burdening district courts with additional litigation.” Hewitt, 606 U. S., at 437–438 (plurality opinion). Treating the disparity resulting from § 924(c)'s amendment as a compelling reason for reducing a sentence would undermine Congress's choice to leave the sentence intact.

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