United States v. Dunphy

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “the Commission’s policy statements implementing the statute’s authorization of retroactive sentence reductions are binding”
• holding that § 1B1.10 is “a jurisdictional bar to reducing sentences below the range authorized by the Commission”
• holding that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize sentence below minimum of amended Guidelines range
• holding that § 3582 proceedings “do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant”
• holding that the ms analysis was flawed and that l did not apply to § 35 82(c)(2) because such proceedings were not full sentencing hearings and only allowed for reductions rather than increases to sentences
• providing that district court, pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), has no authority to reduce sentence below minimum of amended Guidelines range where defendant received within-Guidelines sentence at original sentencing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).