In re Jewel Ritz H.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that disparities with future sentences due to non-retroactive changes in the law cannot be “extraordinary and compelling reasons”
• holding that First Step Act’s non-retroactive amendment to § 924(c)(1)(C) is a “legally impermissible” ground for compassionate release
• holding “a non- retroactive change in law, whether offered alone or in combination with other factors, cannot contribute to a finding of ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for a reduction in sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A)”
• stating in dicta that Mathis did not create a new rule that “extended the normal one-year time limit of § 2255(f)(1)” by operation of § 2255(f)(3)
• intervening judicial decision “did not change the law; it was an interpretation of existing law”
• views of present-day judge about appropriate punishment for offense do not establish extraordinary and compelling reason for reducing sentence imposed years ago

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).