United States v. Bryant

Docket Number19-14267
Decision Date07 May 2021
Defendant, a corrupt former police officer who was sentenced to prison for running drugs and guns, filed a motion seeking a reduction in his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court denied the motion based on the Sentencing Commission's policy statement found at USSG 1B1.13 The Eleventh Circuit affirmed and concluded that section 1B1.13 is an applicable policy statement for all section 3582(c)(1)(A) motions, and Application Note 1(D) does not grant discretion to courts to...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 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

vLex

Start Your 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

vLex

Start Your 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

vLex

Start Your 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

vLex

Start Your 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

vLex

Start Your 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

vLex
696 cases
  • United States v. Eccleston
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • June 10, 2021
    ...just does not want it to restrict the defendant's ability to be resentenced. See McGee, 992 F.3d at 1048. Cf. United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1255 (11th Cir. 2021) ("There is no question that 1B1.13 is the policy statement the Commission adopted to comply with this statutory mandate......
  • United States v. Gonzales
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • June 1, 2021
    ...just does not want it to restrict the defendant's ability to be resentenced. See McGee, 992 F.3d at 1048. Cf. United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1255 (11th Cir. 2021) ("There is no question that 1B1.13 is the policy statement the Commission adopted to comply with this statutory mandate......
  • United States v. Ruvalcaba
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • February 15, 2022
    ...panel of the Eleventh Circuit has held that the current policy statement applies to prisoner-initiated motions. See United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1247 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 583, 211 L.Ed.2d 363 (2021). That holding, though, is based mainly on the cou......
  • United States v. Pate
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • August 10, 2022
    ..."must be derived from the text itself" and "cannot be used to contradict the text" or used alone to justify it. United States v. Bryant , 996 F.3d 1243, 1257–58 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Bellitto v. Snipes , 935 F.3d 1192, 1201 (11th Cir. 2019) ). But a statute's purpose, when derived from ......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Law
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 73-4, June 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...§ 3582(c)(1)(A) (2018).127. . Id.128. Id.129. Id.130. U.S. Sent'g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 (U.S. Sent'g Comm'n 2018). 131. Id.132. 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021).133. Id. at 1251-52, 1265. 134. Id. at 1269 (Martin, J., dissenting).135. United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1240 (11th Ci......