United States v. Odis Jackson

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that, in applying the First Step Act, a sentencing court cannot “consider other post-sentencing changes in the law”
• recognizing the similarities between § 404(b) of the First Step Act and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
• affirming after a limited remand for the district court to provide reasons for the denial of the defendant’s FSA motion
• declining to hold that “the court must decide the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),” opting instead to “reserve the issue for another day”
• describing Hegwood as holding “the court couldn’t consider other post-sentencing changes in the law”
• “We hold now that abuse of discretion generally applies, because the FSA gives the district court broad discretion in deciding whether to resentence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).