Dillon v. US
| Decision Date | 30 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-6338.,09-6338. |
| Citation | 130 S.Ct. 2683,177 L. Ed. 2d 271 |
| Parties | Percy DILLON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Lisa B. Freeland, Pittsburgh, PA, for Petitioner.
Leondra R. Kruger, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Lisa B. Freeland, Federal Public Defender, Renee D. Pietropaolo, Assistant Federal, Public Defender, Michael J. Novara, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Peter R. Moyers, Pittsburgh, PA, for Petitioner.
Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Leondra R. Kruger, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Deborah Watson, Attorney Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
A federal court generally "may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed." 18 U.S.C.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Logan
...effective November 1, 2011, gives retroactive effect to the Guidelines Amendments. See § 1B1.10(c). In Dillon v. United States, --U.S.--, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 177 L. Ed. 2d 271 (2010), the United States Supreme Court identified a two step-inquiry for courts to follow in adjudicating a motion fo......
-
United States v. King
...and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range." In Dillon v. United StatesStates,––– U.S.––––, ––––, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690-94 (2010), the Supreme Court held this policy statement to be mandatory and binding on sentencing courts. With the Go......
-
United States v. Davis
...of imprisonment constitutes a final judgment that may not be modified except in limited circumstances. Dillon v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2690, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Section 3582(c)(2) creates “an exception to the general rule of finality in the case of a defendant wh......
-
People v. Lockridge
...discretion, informed by judicial factfinding, does not violate the Sixth Amendment. See, e.g., Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. [817, 828–829, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) ] (“ [W]ithin establishedlimits[,] ... the exercise of [sentencing] discretion does not contravene the Sixth......
-
Interdistrict Variation in the Implementation of the Crack Retroactivity Policy by U.S. District Courts
...& Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010).Dixon, J. (1995). The organizational context of criminal sentencing. The American Journal of Sociology, 100, 1157-1198.Eisenstein, ......