PARTIAL AFFIRMATION COUNTS IF THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS SEMANTICAL, SEE COMMENTS

https://ballotpedia.org/Pulsifer_v._United_States

Background

• Pulsifer v. United States is a case involving the First Step Act of 2018 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1). The justices were asked to interpret the federal sentencing laws that allow some nonviolent offenders convicted of drug crimes to avoid mandatory minimum sentences. The provision of the sentencing law requires that a convicted defendant “does not have — (A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; (B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and (C) a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines.” In order to calculate a defendant's criminal history points, the United States Sentencing Commission adds points using the following guidelines:

  • 3 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month

  • 2 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment of at least sixty days not counted in (a)

  • 1 point for each prior sentence not counted in (a) or (b), up to a total of 4 points for this subsection

  • 2 points if the defendant committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status

  • 1 point for each prior sentence resulting from a conviction of a crime of violence that did not receive any points under (a), (b), or (c) above because such sentence was treated as a single sentence, up to a total of 3 points for this subsection

• Pulslifer has asked whether a defendant is ineligible for relief under the sentencing guidelines if the defendant’s criminal history includes any of the disqualifying criteria or if they are ineligible only if all criteria are included.

• The provision has been reviewed by the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuit Courts. The Seventh and Eighth Circuits found that the and in the provision meant or, so any disqualifying criteria in a convicted defendant’s criminal record would render them ineligible for relief. The Ninth Circuit found that and meant and, requiring all disqualifying criteria in a convicted defendant’s criminal record to be present to render them ineligible for relief. The Eleventh Circuit Court will also review the provision.