Rutherford v. United States · ¶39

Petitioners, echoed by the dissent, insist that our reading artifcially limits the text. The terms “extraordinary and compelling,” they say, are “ `comprehensive and fexible,' ” requiring a “ `case-by-case' inquiry into the `totality of the circumstances.' ” Brief for Petitioner Rutherford 15, 17; see Brief for Petitioner Carter 41. And under this “ `fexible, all-things-considered approach,' ” a judge may consider the disparity resulting from Congress's amendment to § 924(c). Brief for Petitioner Rutherford 17; see post, at 480 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.).

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