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.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day 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......
-
Crack, Congress, and the Normalization of Federal Sentencing: Why 12,040 Federal Inmates Believe That Their Sentences Should Be Reduced, and Why They and Others Like Them May Be Right - Michael Mcneill
...to cocaine HCl to remove the hydrochloride component ofthe molecule and crystallize the 23. See generally Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010); United States v. Ware, No. 08-625-01, 2012 WL 38937 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2012). 24. Powdered Cocaine Fast Facts: Questions and Answers, Nat......
-
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, ......