§Why CasetextPricing

USA v. PEREZ et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Reduce Sentence - USSC Amendment 782

7 Cited authorities

  1. Dillon v. United States

    560 U.S. 817 (2010)   Cited 7,224 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Commission's policy statements are binding on a court considering a motion for sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)

  2. United States v. Taylor

    778 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2015)   Cited 265 times
    Holding that a district court had jurisdiction—meaning the power to adjudicate—a motion for a reduced term of imprisonment even though it was without the authority to grant the motion because the defendant did not satisfy the statutory criteria for relief

  3. U.S. v. Monroe

    580 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 67 times
    Finding ambiguous plea agreement did not preclude motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

  4. Section 2255 - Federal custody; remedies on motion attacking sentence

    28 U.S.C. § 2255   Cited 129,909 times   129 Legal Analyses
    Adopting one-year limitations period for §2255 motions

  5. Section 841 - Prohibited acts A

    21 U.S.C. § 841   Cited 91,423 times   147 Legal Analyses
    In § 841 prosecutions, then, it is the fact that the doctor issued an unauthorized prescription that renders his or her conduct wrongful, not the fact of the dispensation itself.

  6. Section 3582 - Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment

    18 U.S.C. § 3582   Cited 55,170 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Granting district court discretion to modify sentence when Sentencing Guideline upon which sentence was based is subsequently amended

  7. Section 3742 - Review of a sentence

    18 U.S.C. § 3742   Cited 10,929 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the appellate court may reverse a sentence that is too low