Thomas v. Hartman

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “the sentencing court must find that a defendant satisfies each of subsections (f)(1) through (f)(5)” to be eligible for safety-valve relief (emphasis added)
• “The First Step Act was enacted to decrease the number of criminal defendants subject to mandatory minimum sentences.” (citation omitted)
• “We decline to adopt that novel reading when it appears to have been crafted by the government specifically for this statute to achieve its preferred outcome.”
• “That Congress might not have anticipated how broadly its reforms would sweep does not make those reforms absurd.”
• “[T]he sentencing court must find that a defendant satisfies each of subsections (f)(1) through (f)(5) before it may depart from a statutory minimum sentence.”
• “Because courts should not be in the business of rewriting legislation, we apply the absurdity doctrine only under rare and exceptional circumstances.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).