hewitt-v-us-us-resp: CitationClerk

1 Cases: Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U.S. 69 (2023) flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · medium confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

4 of 7 located

Why we flagged this

At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Bartenwerfer v. Buckley”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“ 'This Court generally assumes that, when Congress enacts statutes, it is aware of this Court's relevant precedents.' ” Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.

“a court had not imposed” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

“as of ” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

“Passive voice,” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

“pulls the actor off the stage.” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

“the actor is unimportant” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

“the focus * * * is on the thing being acted on,” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

2 Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Borden v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

3 Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 580 U.S. 5 (2016) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · medium confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Bravo-Fernandez v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

4 Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (1994) flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

2 of 4 located

Why we flagged this

At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Brown v. Gardner”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“a sentence” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

“any sentence.” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

“presumption that a given term is used to mean the same thing throughout a statute” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

“surely at its most vigorous when a term is repeated within a given sentence” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

5 Brown v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1195 (2024) brief quality flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · medium confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

0 of 1 located

Brief-quality observations

A case named 'Justin Rashaad Brown, Petitioner v. United States' exists in CourtListener at [{'volume': '602', 'reporter': 'U.S.', 'page': '101'}] (scotus, 2024), but the brief's citation does not match.

Why we flagged this

At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.

Quotes attributed to this authority

“also best fulfills” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

6 Burrell v. United States, 384 F.3d 22 clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Andrew Burrell v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“[I]t is the 'mere fact of a prior conviction' at the time of the charged possession, not the 'reliability' of the conviction, that establishes the § 922(g)(1) predicate.” Found — the brief joined separate passages from the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.

7 Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Calderon v. Thompson”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

8 Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438 (2010) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Carr v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

9 Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993) flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

1 of 2 located

Why we flagged this

At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Deal v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“in the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, the person shall * * * be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years.” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

“second or subsequent conviction” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

10 Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Dillon v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“the general rule of finality” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

11 Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

2 of 3 located

Why we flagged this

At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Dorsey v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“imposing upon the pre-Act offender a pre-Act sentence” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

“impos[e]upon the pre-Act offender a pre-Act sentence” Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.

“Congress ha[s]specifically found * * * [i]s unfairly long,” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

12 Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. 128 (2019) flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · medium confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

3 of 4 located

Why we flagged this

At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Gundy v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“has often 'looked to Congress' choice of verb tense to ascertain a statute's temporal reach' ” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

“act, state, or condition,” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

“is now completed or continues up to the present.” This quote does not appear in the cited opinion's text, but may be a canonical restatement of the opinion — the language appears in another opinion this brief cites.

“the present” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

13 Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (1987) flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

0 of 1 located

Why we flagged this

At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“resentence a defendant in accordance with * * * such instructions as may have been given by the court of appeals” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

14 Lora v. United States, 599 U.S. 453 (2023) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Lora v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

15 Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · medium confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

1 of 4 located

Why we flagged this

At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Pepper v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“has been imposed” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

“effectively wiped the slate clean,” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

“[o]nce imposed * * * may be modified only in very limited circumstances.” The brief's quote matches 75% of the cited opinion, but in separate passages — not as one continuous quote. This typically means the brief either paraphrased inside the quotation marks (Bluebook Rule 5.2 requires brackets for any substitution) or silently omitted intervening text (Bluebook Rule 5.3 requires “. . .” for omissions). Compare the brief's quotation against the cited opinion.

What diverges

brief: …nce imposed * * * may be modified only in very …

opinion: …posed, a sentence may be modified only in very …

16 Pulsifer v. United States, 601 U.S. 124 (2024) flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

1 of 2 located

Why we flagged this

At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Pulsifer v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“choice between” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

“can sensibly be made only by * * * reviewing text in context” The brief's quote matches 92% of the cited opinion, but in separate passages — not as one continuous quote. This typically means the brief either paraphrased inside the quotation marks (Bluebook Rule 5.2 requires brackets for any substitution) or silently omitted intervening text (Bluebook Rule 5.3 requires “. . .” for omissions). Compare the brief's quotation against the cited opinion.

What diverges

brief: …can sensibly be made only by * * * reviewing text in context…

opinion: …can sensibly be made only by examining the content of paragraph(f)(1)s three subparagraphs, including what they say, how they relate to each other, and how they fit with other pertinent law. pp. 6-15.(b) the text and context of paragraph(f)(1), as read against the guidelines, yield just one plausible statutory construction. the paragraph creates an eligibility checklist, and specifies three necessary conditions for safety-valve relief. reading the paragraph as pulsifer does to set out a single condition-i.e., that the defendant not have the combination of the characteristics listed in subparagraphs a, b, and c-would create two statutory difficulties that the governments reading does not. pp. 15-23.(1) pulsifers reading would render subparagraph a superfluous because a defendant who has a three-point offense under subparagraph b and a two-point offense under subparagraph c will always have more than four criminal-history points under subparagraph a. that reading leaves subparagraph a with no work to do: removing it from the statute would make the exact same people eligible(and ineligible) for relief. that kind of superfluity, in and of itself, refutes pulsifers reading. when a statutory construction renders an entire subparagraph meaningless, this court has noted, the canon against surplusage applies with special force. national assn. of mfrs. v. department of defense, 583 u. s. 109, 128. that is particularly true when, as here, the subparagraph is so evidently designed to serve a concrete function. pp. 15-20.(2) pulsifers reading would also create a second problem related to paragraph(f)(1)s gatekeeping function. the guidelines presume that defendants with worse criminal records-exhibiting recidivism, lengthy sentences, and violence-deserve greater punishment. under the governments reading, paragraph(f)(1) sorts defendants accordingly. when the defendant has committed multiple non-minor offenses, he cannot get relief(subparagraph a). and so too when he has committed even a single serious offense punished with a lengthy prison sentence(subparagraph b) or one involving violence(subparagraph c). pulsifers reading, by contrast, would allow safety-valve relief to defendants with more serious records while barring relief to defendants with less serious ones. a defendant with a three-point offense and a two-point violent offense would be denied relief. but a defendant with multiple three-point violent offenses could get relief simply because he happens not to have a two-point violent offense. contrary to pulsifers view, that anomalous result cannot be ignored on the ground that a sentencing judge retains discretion to impose a lengthy sentence. if congress thought it could always rely on sentencing discretion, it would not have created a criminal-history requirement in the first instance. instead, it specified a requirement that allows such discretion to operate only if a defendants record does not reach a certain level of seriousness. pulsifers construction of paragraph(f)(1) makes a hash of that gatekeeping function. pp. 20-23.(c) the uncontested fact that congress amended paragraph(f)(1) as part of the first step act to make safety-valve relief more widely available does not assist in interpreting the statutory text here. both parties views of the paragraph widen the opportunity for safety-valve relief, and pulsifers interpretation is not better just because it would allow more relief than the governments. no law pursues its... purposes at all costs. luna perez v. sturgis public schools, 598 u. s. 142, 150. here, where congress did not eliminate but only curtailed mandatory minimums, the court can do no better than examining paragraph(f)(1)s text in context to determine the exact contours of the defendants to whom congress extended safety-valve relief. p. 26.(d) the court rejects pulsifers efforts to invoke the rule of lenity. lenity applies only when a statute is genuinely ambiguous. for the reasons explained above, although there are two grammatically permissible readings of paragraph(f)(1), in context its text is susceptible of only one possible construction. that leaves no role for lenity to play. pp. 27-28. 39 f. 4th 1018, affirmed. kagan, j., delivered the opinion of the court, in which roberts, c. j., and thomas, alito, kavanaugh, and barrett, jj., joined. gorsuch, j., filed a dissenting opinion, in which sotomayor and jackson, jj., joined. notice: this opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the united states reports. readers are requested to notify the reporter of decisions, supreme court of the united states, washington, d. c. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. supreme court of the united states _________________ no. 22-340 _________________ mark e. pulsifer, petitioner v. united states on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit march 15, 2024 justice kagan delivered the opinion of the court. the safety valve provision of federal sentencing law exempts certain defendants from mandatory minimum penalties, thus enabling courts to give them lighter prison terms. to qualify for safety-valve relief, a defendant must meet various criteria, one of which addresses his criminal history. that criterion, in stylized form, requires that a defendant does not have a, b, and c-where a, b, and c refer to three ways in which past criminality may suggest future dangerousness and therefore warrant a more severe sentence. in brief(with details below), a, b, and c are more than 4 criminal history points, a 3-point offense, and a 2-point violent offense. the question presented is how to understand the criminalhistory requirement. the government contends that the phrase does not have a, b, and c creates a checklist with three distinct conditions. on that view, a defendant meets the requirement(and so is eligible for safety-valve relief) if he does not have a, does not have b, and does not have c. or stated conversely, a person fails to meet the requirement(and so cannot get relief) if he has any one of the three. the petitioner here instead contends that the phrase does not have a, b, and c sets out a single, amalgamated condition for relief. on his reading, a defendant meets the requirement(and is eligible for relief) so long as he does not have the combination of a, b, and c. or put conversely, he fails to meet the requirement(and cannot get relief) only when he has all three. today, we agree with the governments view of the criminal-history provision. i congress sometimes establishes mandatory minimum penalties for crimes, including drug offenses. those provisions put a lower limit on a courts sentencing discretion, reflecting congresss judgment that specified conduct demands no less than a specified punishment. for drug offenses of the kind involved here, the existence and length of minimum penalties typically depend on the type and quantity of the drug at issue, the harm resulting from the crime, and(relevant here) the defendants criminal history. the safety-valve provision, 18 u. s. c. §3553(f), offers some defendants convicted of drug offenses an escape from otherwise applicable mandatory minimums. under the provision, a court is to sentence a defendant without regard to any statutory minimum if it finds that five criteria are met. ibid. three of the criteria focus on characteristics of the offense-in brief, whether the defendant used violence; whether the crime resulted in death or serious injury; and whether the defendant acted as a ringleader. see §3553(f)(2)-(4). one of the criteria addresses the defendants cooperation with the government. see §3553(f)(5). and one-the first listed and the most relevant here-concerns the defendants criminal history. see §3553(f)(1). the complete text of the safety-valve provision is set out in this opinions appendix. the criminal-history requirement-we usually call it paragraph(f)(1)-recently underwent a substantial revision, making it easier for a defendant to meet. as originally enacted, the paragraph limited safety-valve relief to defendants who did not have more than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines. violent crime control and law enforcement act of 1994, 108 stat. 1985. what that meant in practice-we explain why just below-was that anything more than a single minor crime barred a defendant from gaining relief. but that is no longer so. in the first step act of 2018, congress relaxed the safety-valve provisions criminal-history requirement, enabling defendants with more significant criminal records to qualify. pub. l. 115-391, 132 stat. 5221. today, paragraph(f)(1) is met if the court finds at sentencing that: the 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. and if the defendant also meets § 3553(f)s other four criteria, he becomes exempt from a statutory minimum. as the text makes clear, the new paragraph(f)(1)(like the old one) turns on the defendants criminal-history points under the guidelines. in general, the severity of guidelines sentencing recommendations increases with the number of criminal-history points the defendant has(often called his criminal-history score). and the guidelines assign more points to more serious prior offenses. there is a caveat to that rule, which will become pertinent later. see infra, at 17-20. some prior convictions, even if for serious offenses, do not add any points to a defendants score. that is true, for example, if the conviction is quite old or if it was rendered by a foreign court. see u. s. sentencing guidelines(ussg) §4a1.2(e)(3),(h). but putting such exceptions aside, convictions resulting in longer prison sentences add more points to a defendants total. as previewed above, the guidelines award one point for minor offenses-specifically, for those resulting in sentences of less than 60 days. in the new paragraph(f)(1), those minor sentences do not matter at all: because of the excluding phrase, they cannot, either alone or in combination, prevent a defendant from gaining safety-valve relief. but longer sentences, generating more points, fall within the paragraphs notice. a prison sentence of between 60 days and 13 months earns two points under the guidelines. see §4a1.1(b). so a conviction punished with that sentence will count, for purposes of the paragraph, as a prior 2-point offense, assuming it is also violent(as defined in a nearby provision). §3553(f)(1)(c),(g). moving up another notch, a sentence exceeding 13 months earns three points under the guidelines. see §4a1.1(a). so a conviction giving rise to that greater penalty(whether or not violent) will qualify under the paragraph as a prior 3-point offense. §3553(f)(1)(b). this case involves a dispute about whether paragraph(f)(1) bars petitioner mark pulsifer from gaining safetyvalve relief. pulsifer pleaded guilty in 2020 to distributing at least 50 grams of methamphetamine. he faced a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison unless the safetyvalve provision came to his aid. the government claimed it did not because pulsifer could not meet its criminalhistory requirement. pulsifer had two relevant prior convictions, each for a three-point offense. in the governments view, that fact disqualified pulsifer from obtaining relief several times over. he had not just one but two prior 3-point offenses, as specified in subparagraph b of the requirement. and because three plus three equals six, he also had more than 4 criminal history points, as specified in subparagraph a. but pulsifer claimed that was still not enough. he pointed out that his criminal record lacked a 2-point violent offense, as specified in subparagraph c. and in his view, only the combination of the items listed in the three subparagraphs-the full package, as it werecould prevent him from getting safety-valve relief. the district court rejected pulsifers argument, ruling that a defendant is ineligible for safety valve relief if he has any of the three things specified in paragraph(f)(1). app. to pet. for cert. 35a-36a. the mandatory minimum, the court concluded, thus applied to pulsifers sentence. the court of appeals for the eighth circuit affirmed. the court framed the question as in what sense the statute uses the word and. 39 f. 4th 1018, 1021(2022). in the abstract, the court stated, the phrase the defendant does not have(a),(b), and(c) might be read in two different ways. it could mean that the defendant does not have the combination of the three elements listed in(a),(b), and(c), as pulsifer urged. ibid. or it could mean, as the government argued, that the defendant does not have every one of those elements-in other words, that he does not have(a), does not have(b), and does not have(c). in choosing between those readings, the court found a strong textual basis to prefer the governments. ibid. if pulsifer were right, the court explained, subparagraph a would be rendered superfluous-without the slightest effect. ibid. a defendant who has a prior three-point offense under subparagraph b and a prior two-point violent offense under subparagraph c would always meet the criterion in subparagraph a, because he would always have more than four criminal history points. ibid. that was reason enough to read paragraph(f)(1) the other way-as an eligibility checklist of three distinct conditions, each of which the defendant must meet to qualify for safety-valve relief. id., at 1022. and on that view, the court concluded, pulsifer could not escape a mandatory minimum: because he had a pair of three-point offenses, it was simply immaterial that he did not also have a prior two-point violent offense. id., at 1022-1023. we granted certiorari, 598 u. s. ___(2023), because the courts of appeals have split over how to read the safetyvalve provisions criminal-history requirement. today, we adopt the governments view, and so affirm the decision below. a defendant is eligible for safety-valve relief under paragraph(f)(1) only if he does not have all three of the items listed-or said more specifically, does not have four criminal-history points, does not have a prior three-point offense, and does not have a prior two-point violent offense. the paragraph thus creates an eligibility checklist, and demands that a defendant satisfy every one of its conditions. ii we start with paragraph(f)(1)s grammatical structure, because pulsifers main argument(and initially the dissents) is that it resolves this case. see brief for pulsifer 16-20; post, at 7-8(opinion of gorsuch, j.). recall that the paragraph requires a court to find that the defendant does not have the features specified in subparagraphs a, b, and c. because congress used and to connect those subparagraphs, pulsifer contends, a defendant is ineligible for safety-valve relief only if he has the complete combo- i.e., more than four criminal-history points plus a prior three-point offense plus a prior two-point violent one. brief for pulsifer 19. that result follows, pulsifer claims, simply the view that the meaning of paragraph(f)(1) depends on context, see post, at 15-16. from what ordinary grammar says. tr. of oral arg. 3. but in fact grammar does not say so much. there are two grammatically permissible ways to read paragraph(f)(1). yes, one is pulsifers. but the other is the governments-that a defendant is ineligible for relief unless he can satisfy each of the paragraphs three conditions. the choice between the two, as this part shows, is not a matter of grammatical rules. it can sensibly be made only by examining, as the next part does, the paragraphs content, as read in conjunction with the guidelines. or, as we usually say in statutory construction cases, by reviewing text in context…

17 Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020) flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

1 of 2 located

Why we flagged this

At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Ramos v. Louisiana”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“the finality of * * * criminal judgments” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

“ 'fundamental fairness and accuracy' ” Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.

18 Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 2 of 2 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Russello v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“presum[ption] that Congress acts intentionally and purposely” Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.

“includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act,” Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.

19 Smith v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 471 (2019) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Smith v. Berryhill”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“Congress' use of the word 'any' suggests an intent to use that term 'expansively.' ” Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.

20 Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Teague v. Lane”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

21 United States v. Bethany, 975 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2020) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Rashod Bethany”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

22 Cases-Continued: Page United States v. Cruz-Rivera, 954 F.3d 410 brief quality flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · medium confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

Brief-quality observations

A case named 'United States v. Cruz-Rivera' exists in CourtListener at [{'volume': '904', 'reporter': 'F.3d', 'page': '63'}] (ca1, 2018), but the brief's citation does not match.

How we matched this

The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.

23 United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Davis”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“crime of violence” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

24 United States v. Eldridge, 2 F.4th 27 (2d Cir. 2021) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Eldridge”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

25 142 S. Ct. 2863 (2022) flagged

Case exists as cited?

Not verified

Opinion text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

Why we flagged this

We couldn't independently verify this citation against our public sources.

26 United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Frady”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

27 United States v. Gomez, 960 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2020) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Gilberto Gomez”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

28 United States v. Henry, 983 F.3d 214 (6th Cir. 2020) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Michael Henry”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of [the] date of enactment.” Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.

29 United States v. Hodge, 948 F.3d 160 clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Richard Hodge, Jr”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

30 United States v. Jefferson, 989 F.3d 1173 clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Jefferson”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

31 United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2020) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Zavian Jordan”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

32 United States v. Merrell, 37 F.4th 571 (9th Cir. 2022) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 2 of 2 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Verne Merrell”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“Had Congress intended the phrase 'a sentence' to convey” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

“very broad meaning, it could have used the word 'any,' as it did earlier in the same sentence.” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

33 United States v. Mitchell, 38 F.4th 382 (3rd Cir. 2022) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 2 of 2 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Tyrone Mitchell”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“background legal principle[]” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

“vacatur makes a sentence void from the start” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

34 United States v. Reece, 938 F.3d 630 (5th Cir. 2019) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Antonyo Reece”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“crime of violence” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

35 United States v. Richardson, 948 F.3d 733 clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Frank Richardson”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

36 United States v. Roberson, 752 F.3d 517 (1st Cir. 2014) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Roberson”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

37 United States v. Smith, 967 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2020) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. De Andre Smith”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

38 United States v. Snyder, 235 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2000) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Snyder”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“belated success in vacating his [conviction] bears no relevance to his conviction under § 922(g)(1)” Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.

39 United States v. Sparkman, 973 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2020) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Tony Sparkman”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

40 United States v. Smith, 756 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2014) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 2 of 2 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Smith”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“prison term of many decades” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

“certain to outlast the defendant's life and the lives of every person [then] walking the planet.” Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.

41 Cases-Continued: Page United States v. Uriarte, 975 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2020) brief quality flagged

Case exists as cited?

Not verified

Opinion text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · opinion text unavailable

Brief-quality observations

Citation triple resolves in CourtListener to 'United States v. Hector Uriarte', not 'Page United States v. Uriarte'.

Why we flagged this

We couldn't independently verify this citation against our public sources.
We couldn't retrieve the source text from any of our public sources.

Why we couldn't check the quotes

We couldn't retrieve any opinion text for this citation from our public sources. The case may only be available on a paid service like Westlaw or Lexis. Without the text, we can't check whether the brief's quotes appear in the opinion.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

These quotes have not been verified because the opinion text wasn't available. Use the docket link above to locate the cited ruling and compare directly.

the exact harsh and expensive mandatory minimum sentences that § 403 restricts and reduces

Not verified: opinion text unavailable.

would be fundamentally at odds with the First Step Act's ameliorative nature.

Not verified: opinion text unavailable.

sentence in excess of or more severe than the original sentence

Not verified: opinion text unavailable.

for all or part of the remainder of his original sentence

Not verified: opinion text unavailable.

42 United States v. Voris, 964 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2020) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Jack Voris”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

43 United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

Pass· 1 of 1 located

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Wilson”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“Congress' use of a verb tense is significant in construing statutes.” Found word-for-word in the opinion.

44 Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980) flagged

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

1 of 4 located

Why we flagged this

At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Whalen v. United States”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“has not been imposed” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

“a sentence * * * has * * * been imposed” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

“[i]mposition of a sentence,” Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

“The Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy protects * * * 'against multiple punishments for the same offense.' ” Found — the brief signaled the modification with a Bluebook parenthetical, so we used a relaxed match. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.

45 Young v. United States, 943 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2019) clean

Case exists as cited?

Pass · high confidence

Opinion text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Keith Young”.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

46 92 F.4th 304 brief quality flagged

Case exists as cited?

Not verified

Opinion text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

Brief-quality observations

Case name in the brief differs materially from the official record.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

47 Young v. United States, 582 Fed. Appx. 528 brief quality flagged

Case exists as cited?

Not verified

Opinion text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

Brief-quality observations

Citation triple resolves in CourtListener to 'United States v. Jarvis Ross', not 'Young v. United States'.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

48 456 Fed. Appx. 434 brief quality flagged

Case exists as cited?

Not verified

Opinion text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

Brief-quality observations

Case name in the brief differs materially from the official record.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

49 566 U.S. 1029 brief quality flagged

Case exists as cited?

Not verified

Opinion text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

Brief-quality observations

Case name in the brief differs materially from the official record.

View matched opinion on CourtListener →

50 574 U.S. 1201 flagged

Case exists as cited?

Not verified

Opinion text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in opinion?

N/A · no quotes to check

Why we flagged this

We couldn't independently verify this citation against our public sources.

51 104 Stat. 4862 manual verify

Citation exists?

Not verified

Source text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in source?

N/A · source text unavailable

Please verify this one manually

This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.

Quotes attributed to this authority

These quotes have not been verified because the source text wasn't retrieved.

shall apply to any offense committed before the date of the enactment of this section, if the statute of limitations applicable to that offense had not run as of such date.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

52 132 Stat. 5220 manual verify

Citation exists?

Not verified

Source text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

Please verify this one manually

This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.

53 132 Stat. 5221 manual verify

Citation exists?

Not verified

Source text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in source?

N/A · source text unavailable

Please verify this one manually

This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.

Quotes attributed to this authority

These quotes have not been verified because the source text wasn't retrieved.

violation of [Section 924(c)] that occurs after a prior conviction under [Section 924(c)] has become final.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of [the Act's] date of enactment.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

has * * * been imposed

Not verified: source text unavailable.

is now completed or continues up to the present.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

the present.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

a sentence has been imposed as of 2018, but it has since been vacated.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

a sentence had been imposed as of 2018, but it has since been vacated.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

Most importantly, in my view, [the Act] reduces some of the harshest mandatory minimum sentences.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

overly harsh and expensive mandatory minimums

Not verified: source text unavailable.

54 132 Stat. 5222 manual verify

Citation exists?

Not verified

Source text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in source?

N/A · source text unavailable

Please verify this one manually

This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.

Quotes attributed to this authority

These quotes have not been verified because the source text wasn't retrieved.

appl[ies] to any offense that was committed before the date of enactment of [the First Step Act] if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

shall apply to any offense that was committed before the date of enactment of this Act, if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

has * * * been imposed.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

has * * * been imposed as of

Not verified: source text unavailable.

has * * * been imposed.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

a sentence,

Not verified: source text unavailable.

any sentence.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

offense[s]

Not verified: source text unavailable.

any offense * * * committed before the date of enactment of this Act.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

sentence * * * has * * * been imposed,

Not verified: source text unavailable.

a sentence for the offense has not been imposed,

Not verified: source text unavailable.

is now completed or continues up to the present,

Not verified: source text unavailable.

a sentence * * * has not been imposed,

Not verified: source text unavailable.

a case is remanded

Not verified: source text unavailable.

shall apply the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Commission * * * that were in effect on the date of the previous sentencing of the defendant prior to the appeal.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

55 132 Stat. 5238 manual verify

Citation exists?

Not verified

Source text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

Please verify this one manually

This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.

56 Pub. L. No. 98-473 retrieval gap

Citation exists?

Pass · medium confidence

Source text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

How we matched this

Resolved as a non-case authority (statute, rule, or regulation).

View text on GovInfo →

57 98 Stat. 1987 manual verify

Citation exists?

Not verified

Source text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

Please verify this one manually

This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.

58 98 Stat. 1998 manual verify

Citation exists?

Not verified

Source text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in source?

N/A · source text unavailable

Please verify this one manually

This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.

Quotes attributed to this authority

These quotes have not been verified because the source text wasn't retrieved.

may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.

Not verified: source text unavailable.

59 Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5221 retrieval gap

Citation exists?

Pass · medium confidence

Source text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in source?

N/A · source text unavailable

View text on GovInfo →

Quotes attributed to this authority

These quotes have not been verified because the source text wasn't retrieved. Use the link above to open the source and compare directly.

any offense that was committed before the date of enactment of [the] Act, if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment,

Not verified: source text unavailable.

62 132 Stat. 5239 manual verify

Citation exists?

Not verified

Source text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

Please verify this one manually

This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.

64 U.S. Const. Amend. V clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A

How we matched this

Constitutional citation.

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

65 Fifth Amendment clean

Citation exists?

Pass · high confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A

How we matched this

Constitutional citation.

View text on Cornell Law (LII) →

66 164 Cong. Rec. S7649 (daily ed. Dec. 17, 2018) manual verify

Citation exists?

Not verified

Source text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in source?

N/A · source text unavailable

Please verify this one manually

This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.

Quotes attributed to this authority

These quotes have not been verified because the source text wasn't retrieved.

unfairness in how

Not verified: source text unavailable.

mandatory minimum sentences are sometimes applied,

Not verified: source text unavailable.

67 164 Cong. Rec. S7749 (daily ed. Dec. 18, 2018) manual verify

Citation exists?

Not verified

Source text retrieved?

No

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

Please verify this one manually

This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.

68 Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4789 clean

Citation exists?

Pass · medium confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

N/A · no quotes to check

View opinion on GovInfo →

69 Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 flagged

Citation exists?

Pass · medium confidence

Source text retrieved?

Yes

Quotes found in source?

0 of 1 located

Why we flagged this

At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.

View opinion on GovInfo →

Quotes attributed to this authority

“is so draconian that the Conference has taken a specific position against it” Not found in the cited source text. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.

hewitt-v-us-us-resp

Sent this report by a friend?