Southern Union Co. v. United States

The court held that an incarcerated person who collaterally attacks the validity of his conviction must proceed through 28 U.S.C. §2255, not 18 U.S.C. §3582; the supposed invalidity of a conviction is not among the "extraordinary and compelling reasons" that justify compassionate release.

The Court held the First Step Act's amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) are not retroactively "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for granting compassionate release.

In a case about the fugitive-tolling doctrine, the Court held that the Sentencing Reform Act does not authorize a rule automatically extending a defendant's supervised release term when the defendant fails to report to probation.· AI-written

The court held that all first-time 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) offenders who appear for sentencing after the First Step Act's enactment date, including those whose previous § 924(c) sentences have been vacated and who thus need to be resentenced, are subject to the Act's revised penalties.

The court held that a district court considering whether to revoke a defendant's term of supervised release may not consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), which covers retribution vis-à-vis the defendant’s underlying criminal offense.

The Supreme Court affirmed both courts of appeals, holding that a state drug conviction counts as an ACCA predicate if it involved a drug on the federal schedules at the time of that conviction.

The Court held that a court's failure to enter a preliminary order imposing criminal forfeiture before sentencing does not necessarily bar a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing.

The Court held that a provision of one subsection of Title 18 barring concurrent sentences does not govern sentences pursuant to a different part of the same section.

In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that multiple criminal offenses that a person commits during a single criminal episode do not count as separate convictions when considering the number of prior convictions a criminal has under the ACCA.

The Court ruled that a term of supervised release is paused, or tolled, by imprisonment for another offense, in a case where a prisoner on supervised release was later jailed on state-law charges.· AI-written

The court held that when the record as a whole demonstrates the judge had a reasoned basis for his decision, the judge's use of generic boilerplate to explain their choice of a sentence reduction under the Guidelines is adequate.

The court held that a miscalculation of a Guidelines sentencing range that has been determined to be plain and to affect a defendant's substantial rights calls for a court of appeals to exercise its discretion to vacate the defendant's sentence in the ordinary case.

The court held that a person who has been sentenced based on a mandatory minimum sentence with a statutory justification for a longer sentence, rather a justification within the Guidelines, is not entitled to sentence reductions under subsequent amendments to the Guidelines.

The court held that a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) is "based on" the defendant's Guidelines range so long as that range was part of the framework the district court relied on in imposing the sentence or accepting the agreement.

The court held that Section 924(c), which provides mandatory minimum sentences for the use of a firearm during certain crimes, does not prevent a sentencing court from considering a mandatory minimum imposed under that provision when calculating an appropriate sentence for the predicate offense.

The Court considered whether the residual clause in the advisory Sentencing Guidelines was unconstitutionally vague, and it unanimously affirmed the lower court, holding the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause.· AI-written

The Court held that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's reliance on a requirement that defendants show "additional evidence" to show substantial harm arising from incorrect sentencing guidelines is impermissible.

In a case about evaluating prior offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act, the Court held that judges may only look at a crime's statutory elements, not the underlying facts, when the conviction crime has a single, indivisible set of elements.· AI-written

The Court decided that, in line with Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), all facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence for a criminal offense must be submitted to and found true by a jury, not merely determined to be true at a judge's discretion.

A plurality of the court held that when a criminal defendant pleads guilty under a plea deal and the judge imposes the recommended sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines, the defendant is eligible to have their sentence reduced if the Guidelines later change.

The Court held that a federal court cannot give a criminal defendant a longer sentence to promote rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that felony vehicle flight, as proscribed by Indiana law, is a violent felony for purposes of the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).

The Court considered whether a district court properly handled the sentencing of a former methamphetamine dealer whose sentence was raised to 65 months after remands, and it ruled in favor of the defendant.· AI-written

The Court held that when a defendant received a resentencing hearing after the Sentencing Guidelines changed in the defendant's favor, the updated Guidelines were binding on the district court, though they could be merely advisory at a first sentencing.· AI-written

The Court held that incarcerated people in federal prison accrue good time credits at the end of each year of actual incarceration, not an amount allocated based on the total number of years of incarceration prescribed at their sentencing.

The Court upheld a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for discharging a firearm during a violent or drug trafficking crime, even though the bank robber's gun went off accidentally.· AI-written

The court held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) does not apply to a variance from a recommended Federal Sentencing Guidelines range; that rule applies only to "departures."

In a case interpreting the Armed Career Criminal Act, the Court ruled that although a crime's elements may not be considered "serious," sentence enhancements related to a defendant's prior record bear on how that determination is made.· AI-written

The Court confirmed that federal district judges utilize, in an advisory (not as law) fashion, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, in cases involving conduct related to possession, distribution, and manufacture of crack cocaine.

The Court held that the federal appeals courts may not presume that a sentence falling outside the range recommended by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is unreasonable.

The court held that the "civil rights restored" exemption of convictions for sentence-enhancement purposes did not extend to a defendant who retained his civil rights at all times, and whose post-conviction legal status remained in all respects unaltered by any state dispensation.

In a case about how appeals courts review federal sentences after Booker made the Guidelines advisory, the Court clarified that a sentence within the Guidelines range may be presumed "reasonable."· AI-written

The Court held that attempted burglary could serve as a predicate felony under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act, which required a mandatory minimum 15-year term for felons in possession of firearms with three prior qualifying convictions.· AI-written

The Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law.

In a case where a defendant's sentence was enhanced for being armed with a firearm though the jury had not found that, the Court held that a Blakely error could be considered harmless.· AI-written

In a criminal sentencing case, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires that, apart from prior convictions, only facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt may be used to calculate a sentence above the statutory maximum.· AI-written

The Court held, 5–4, that in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines under state law, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant.

The United States Supreme Court applied the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey to capital sentencing schemes, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty.

The court held that the courts of appeal must give deferential review to decisions of district courts under the Sentencing Guidelines on the question of consolidation of a defendant's prior convictions.

The Court upheld a Bureau of Prisons regulation that reduced prisoners' sentences for completing a substance abuse program, even though the statute restricted the credit to those who did not commit a firearm-aided felony.· AI-written

In a case about aggravating factors in crimes, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment jury trial right prohibited judges from enhancing sentences beyond statutory maxima based on facts not decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.· AI-written

The Court held that a search warrant is always required unless there are exceptional circumstances.

The Court held that Sentencing Commission guidelines may be cited as binding authority when courts issue sentences for criminal defendants.· AI-written

The court held that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers's statute of limitation for bringing a case against an incarcerated person who gives notice to a forum state that they are incarcerated in another state begins after the notice letter has been received by the forum state's prosecution.