Dillon v. US

Decision Date30 March 2010
Docket NumberNo. 09-6338.,09-6338.
Citation130 S.Ct. 2683,177 L. Ed. 2d 271
PartiesPercy DILLON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court





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.

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.

To continue reading

Request your trial
704 cases
  • United States v. Logan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • February 23, 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • August 5, 2013
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • May 31, 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • February 13, 2014
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT