Percy Dillon v. United States (560 U.S. 817)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 17, 2010 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 560 U.S. 817 · 130 S. Ct. 2683
- Decided
- June 17, 2010
- Term
- October Term 2009
- Vote
- 7–1
- Majority author
- Justice Sotomayor
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. A federal court generally “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.” 18 U. S. C. § 3582(c). Congress has provided an exception to that rule “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). In those circumstances, § 3582(c)(2) authorizes a court to reduce the term of imprisonment “if such a reduction is consistent with” applicable Commission policy statements. The policy statement governing § 3582(c)(2) proceedings instructs courts not to reduce a term of imprisonment below the minimum of an amended sentencing range except to the extent the original term of imprisonment was below the range then applicable. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § lB1.10(b)(2) (Nov. 2009) (USSG). This case presents the question whether our decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220 (2005), which rendered the Guidelines advisory to remedy the Sixth Amendment problems associated with a mandatory sentencing regime, requires treating § lB1.10(b) as nonbinding. We conclude that Booker does not demand that result. I The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA or Act), 98 Stat. 1987, established the Sentencing Commission and authorized it to promulgate Sentencing…
Excerpt of a 25,126-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.