CHRISTIAN MICHAEL THOMAS THEODORE v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a sentencing court may not “consider other legal changes that may have occurred after the defendant committed the offense,” including intervening case law that would remove a defendant’s career-offender enhancement
• concluding that the district court must make “only the changes required by sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act” and “disagree[ing]” with the argument that reconsideration of the § 3553(a
• reasoning that viewing “impose” in isolation “fails to account for the First Step Act’s ‘limiting language,’ namely, the ‘as if’ clause”
• concluding “that the First Step Act does not authorize plenary resentencing”
• seeing “no indication in the statute that Congress intended this limited class of crack cocaine offenders to enjoy such a windfall”
• discussing impact of First Step Act on cocaine base and powder cocaine convictions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).